U.S. patent application number 10/646017 was filed with the patent office on 2005-02-24 for betting method and system for comparing products and services.
Invention is credited to Rossides, Michael T..
Application Number | 20050043829 10/646017 |
Document ID | / |
Family ID | 32329856 |
Filed Date | 2005-02-24 |
United States Patent
Application |
20050043829 |
Kind Code |
A1 |
Rossides, Michael T. |
February 24, 2005 |
Betting method and system for comparing products and services
Abstract
Disclosed is a method for enabling users to pit a product
against another product or products in a bet. In this method, the
terms and rules of a bet contract are created that define a contest
between two or more products. The bet contract also spells out
terms for risking money on the outcome of the contest. Users may
risk money that a product will be shown to be better than the
competing product or products, according to the rules of the
contest. At all stages in the betting process, users can view data
showing how people are betting on the outcome of the contest.
Inventors: |
Rossides, Michael T.;
(Scottsdale, AZ) |
Correspondence
Address: |
Michael T. Rossides
11167 E. Mirasol Circle
Scottsdale
AZ
85255
US
|
Family ID: |
32329856 |
Appl. No.: |
10/646017 |
Filed: |
August 22, 2003 |
Current U.S.
Class: |
700/91 |
Current CPC
Class: |
G07F 17/3255 20130101;
G07F 17/3227 20130101; G07F 17/3288 20130101; G07F 17/32
20130101 |
Class at
Publication: |
700/091 |
International
Class: |
A63F 013/00 |
Claims
I claim:
1. a method for operating a computer database system comprised in
combination of the following processes: (a) a process for creating
a bet: i. defining a contest between one or more products, ii.
defining a comparison process for judging the contest, said
comparison process defining possible comparison outcomes, iii.
defining bet transaction rules for risking money on the outcome of
the contest, (b) a process for finding and viewing the bet contest,
(c) a process for making bet offers for risking money on the
contest, (d) a process for matching up bet offers, (e) a process
for triggering the judging of the contest, (f) a process for
judging the contest, (g) a process for dividing money risked in the
contest according to the result of said judging, and according to
said bet transaction rules, (h) whereby, viewers of the betting on
the contest, and of the result, if any, of the contest obtain
valuable information for comparing the products in said contest.
Description
CROSS-REFERENCES TO RELATED APPLICATIONS
[0001] This application traces priority (Ser. No. 10/442,794) to
provisional patent application 60/426,971 (filing date Nov. 15,
2002).
[0002] This application traces priority to disclosure documents
512,686 (filing date Jun. 3, 2002), 523,794 (filing date Dec. 24,
2002) and 535,992 (filing date Aug. 5, 2003).
[0003] This application also may trace priority to application Ser.
No. 10/442,794 (filing date May 20, 2003), which is currently
abandoned.
[0004] This application refers to U.S. Pat. Nos. 5,575,474 and
6,443,841.
STATEMENT REGARDING FEDERALLY FUNDED RESEARCH
[0005] Not applicable.
BACKGROUND
[0006] 1. Field of the Invention
[0007] The invention relates to betting methods and media
(sometimes called markets) for communicating opinions. It also
relates to advertising methods and media.
[0008] 2. Description of Related Art
[0009] U.S. Pat. Nos. 5,575,474 and 6,443,841 disclose methods and
systems for using bets to communicate. The Iowa Electronic Markets
(http://www.biz.uiowa.edu/iem) enable users to express their
opinions on several matters, especially on who is going to win an
election. The Hollywood Stock Exchange (www.hsx.com) provides a
market system for enabling users to express their opinions on how
movies and movie stars will perform. Robin Hanson
(http://hanson.gmu.edu/gamble.html) has proposed a betting market
to allow people to express scientific opinions.
[0010] This application describes a narrower invention than a
general method and medium for communicating opinions through bets.
It is an invention for solving the more specific problem of how to
communicate that one product is better than another product.
[0011] So, the invention differs from the prior art in the sense
that a tow truck differs from the more general invention of a
motorized vehicle or that a sports bet market differs from the more
general invention of a market. Thus, the invention differs from the
prior art in:
[0012] the subject matter of the bet offers and contracts
[0013] the terms of the offers and contracts
[0014] the input options presented to users
[0015] the output options presented to users
[0016] the user actions
[0017] the steps for displaying and transacting these offers and
contracts
[0018] the bet results and other information generated.
OBJECT OF THE INVENTION
[0019] The object of the invention is to provide a better way to
communicate that a product or service is better than competing
products or services.
BRIEF SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION
[0020] Disclosed is a method for enabling users to pit a product
against another product or products in a bet. In this method, the
terms and rules of a bet contract are created that define a contest
between two or more products. The bet contract also spells out
terms for risking money on the outcome of the contest. Users may
risk money that a product will be shown to be better than the
competing product or products, according to the rules of the
contest. At all stages in the betting process, users can view data
showing how people are betting on the outcome of the contest.
BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE DRAWINGS
[0021] There are no drawings.
DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF THE INVENTION
[0022] Outline of Specification, Our Approach to Describing the
Invention
[0023] The Preface of this specification describes the general
problem that the invention addresses and the general solution
provided by the invention.
[0024] Prefatory Definitions provide definitions of some basic
terms that are used throughout this specification, including
definitions of the classes of users of the invention.
[0025] Part 1 of this specification describes a set of core
modules, which are processes that comprise an expansive embodiment
of the inventive method and direct the operation of the medium that
implements the method.
[0026] The first three core modules enable (1) the creation of a
bet contest for comparing products, (2) the display of bet contest
and bet offers and, (3) the risking of money on a product--the
making of a bet offer, that is. These three modules can stand alone
as the foundation of the expansive embodiment. The other eight
modules add functionality.
[0027] In practice, most, if not all, of the modules will probably
be implemented together, but it is possible to decompose the
expansive embodiment into sub-processes that are performed by
different entities.
[0028] The modules are high-level descriptions that we use for
clarity. The modules themselves can be decomposed into smaller sets
of steps, and rearranged, as is apparent to those skilled in
technical writing or programming can see. The goal of this
specification is to disclose the key novel elements and steps of
the inventive method and medium. There is no ideal way to present
these elements and steps, therefore, those skilled in technical
writing or programming will see better ways to organize and present
this disclosure.
[0029] Part 2 elaborates on Module 1 of Part 1, describing elements
and steps of the invention that enable a user to set the parameters
that create a bet contest for comparing products. Part 3 also
elaborates on Module 1 of Part 1, delving into the creation of a
bet contest, elaborating on how the invention enables a user to
specify the products being compared in a bet contest. Part 3
discloses how the invention enables users to create and use useful
comparison sets.
[0030] Part 4 also elaborates on Module 1 of Part 1, delving into
the creation of a bet contest, elaborating on how the invention
enables a user to specify the comparison question that the bet
contest is about. Part 4 discloses how the invention enables users
to create and use useful comparison questions.
[0031] Part 5 describes methods for displaying information about
people who are betting for and against a product, how they are
betting according to various betting statistics, and for displaying
information about certain people who are not betting for or against
a product.
[0032] Standardized Aspects of Bets in Practice
[0033] A bet can be custom written from the ground up but, in
practice, most of the rules and terms will be standard for
transactional simplicity, as with any market.
[0034] For example, the method may be implemented such that the
author of a bet contest may only have the freedom of choice to pick
the competing products in the contest, with the rest of the terms
and rules being held standard.
[0035] For the purpose of disclosing the inventive method, we will
describe how a user can set virtually all the terms and rules in a
bet contest. We cannot say which terms will be held standard in
practice, but we realize that in practice users usually will not
have the full freedom of choice described.
[0036] We also note that one aspect of the invention is that it
enables users to select from standardized options for making
product contest bets, thereby relieving users of the heavy
transaction costs of creating custom contract offers and trying to
get other people to accept those custom offers. (As with other
transaction methods and systems, standard terms may be incorporated
by reference, or by a link on a screen that is output to
users.)
ILLUSTRATIVE EXAMPLES
[0037] Examples are given throughout. Those skilled in the art will
know that the examples are illustrative only and do not limit the
range of applications of the present invention.
Preface
[0038] The Problem: How to Demonstrate that One Product is Better
Than Another
[0039] A basic problem for an advertiser of a product (or service)
is how to demonstrate that the product is better than a competing
product.
[0040] An advertiser seeks to demonstrate:
[0041] (a) a competitive advantage, or advantages, or overall
better value
[0042] (b) versus a competitor or competitors
[0043] (c) to a set of prospects.
[0044] For example, consider a generic aspirin that has the same
composition as Bayer Aspirin, a well-known brand, and that costs
less than Bayer. The generic appears to be a better value, and yet
Bayer will still sell when presented side by side with the generic.
How is the seller of the generic to demonstrate, "prove," that the
generic is a better value?
[0045] Consider a new restaurant, Patrice, which offers better
tasting food at a lower price than The Cheesecake Factory, a
well-known chain. How is Patrice to demonstrate, "prove," that it
offers a better product than the Cheesecake Factory?
[0046] There is the philosophical and practical problem of how to
"prove" a subjective assertion.
[0047] Then, there is also the problem of how to make the "proof"
available to prospects.
[0048] These are profound problems of selling--how to make a
convincing demonstration that a product is better than another, and
how to inform prospects of that demonstration.
[0049] The problems have not been solved well. It is expensive to
deliver a sales message to prospects, and that self-serving message
is usually suspect.
[0050] Here we will describe a method and medium that can, at a
relatively low cost, allow people to publicly and convincingly
demonstrate that one product is better than another.
[0051] Solution: Method and Medium for Making Bets on Competing
Products
[0052] Our solution to the advertising problems above is a method
implemented by users and a medium that enables people to make
public bets about competing products, i.e., to publicly bet that
product X is better than product Y.
[0053] For example, using the method, a bet could be created that
pits a generic aspirin against Bayer Aspirin, and anyone could then
bet on one aspirin or the other.
[0054] The inventive method also enables people who sell products
to publicly engage in these bets. Willingness to bet shows that a
seller has confidence in his product. Unwillingness to bet shows a
lack of confidence.
[0055] Thus, when prospects view a bet pitting two products they
see which product the betting market thinks is better. Prospects
also see which the sellers of the two products--the people often in
the best position to know--think is the better product.
[0056] Of course, we have oversimplified: judging and demonstrating
that one product is better than another is a multi-faceted problem
that admits no single, simple solution. Hence, a betting solution
will vary depending on many factors, including the products being
compared, the comparisons made, the money available to judge the
products, the rules of the judging, and the preferences of the
prospective buyers. Therefore, the inventive method enables a great
variety of bets and includes a variety of processes for doing
so.
Prefatory Definitions
[0057] Product
[0058] In this specification, the term product refers to anything
that is sold or leased. Thus, it encompasses all services, not just
physical products. Product refers to any kind of merchant as well
that is selling a service--thus, merchants can be compared. We
usually use product alone because it is shorter than saying product
or service.
[0059] A Bet
[0060] The term bet is confusing because it can refer to many
different things. A bet can be a kind of statement in the sense
that someone making a bet offer is making a statement. A bet can be
an offer or contract that defines how two opposing bettors can risk
money against each other on the outcome of an uncertain event. A
bet, therefore, is also a set of rules that define the uncertain
event and how people can risk money on the event. In common
parlance, to make a bet often refers to risking money in a bet
contract. But, in this specification, making a bet is an entire
process with many parts. Bet can encompass all aspects involved in
the creation of the rules of a bet, the making of a bet offer, the
matching of bet offers, and the various other steps in the
transaction of a bet contract. So, when we use bet we will let the
context determine its meaning.
[0061] The Inventive Method
[0062] The inventive method is a set of processes in combination
for operating a computer to create, place, view and possibly
transact useful bets concerning whether one product is better than
another product. Rules for bets are highly variable, which means
that the method can encompass a variety of different rules. As
discussed, we first describe a general method and then describe
more specific sub-methods. As an analogy, one can describe a
general method for playing poker and also describe particular
games. As another analogy, one can describe a general method for
trading securities and also describe differing methods for trading
stocks, bonds and futures.
[0063] The Inventive Medium
[0064] The inventive medium (which may also be called an apparatus
or system, as in the title) is an online, interactive computer
database system, connected to a network of terminals, which
incorporates and implements the inventive method. By analogy, one
can think of an automated market, or a Totalizer and ticket issuing
system at a racetrack.
[0065] Users
[0066] The invention in most implementations will have five
different classes of users:
[0067] (1) Authors: An author creates a product bet contest
involving at least two products. An author may be an individual or
an entity (such as a company).
[0068] (2) Bettors: A bettor risks money on a product in a bet
contest. He may also be an author. A bettor may be an individual or
an entity (such as a company).
[0069] (3) Viewers: A viewer views a bet. He may also be an
author.
[0070] (4) Judges: A judge judges whether one product is better
than another, as defined by the contest rules. A judge enters his
judgment, the bet result, into the medium.
[0071] (5) Administrators: An administrator establishes the
conventions of the medium, such as the standard betting rules. He
may also assist other users, such as authors and judges, in
inputting data and editing bet contests. He may also be an
author.
[0072] Thus, for example, an author may create a contest pitting
Bayer Aspirin against Costco Aspirin. A bettor then risks money
that one of the aspirins will win the contest. Another bettor may
take the same side or the opposite side. A viewer may find and
display the bet data. A judge may judge which aspirin wins the
contest.
Part 1
Core Modules of the Inventive Method and Medium
[0073] The core modules described below are numbered for
convenience, although the execution of a module does not
necessarily depend on the execution of the preceding module. The
execution of the modules depends upon the situation, on what a user
is doing. For instance, two users may make bet offers that are
matched, but does not mean the bet must next be settled; it may
never be settled. Or, a bet offer may be made that is never
matched, but the judging of the bet contest that the offer is about
may still be triggered.
[0074] The Core Modules we describe below are:
[0075] Module 1: Creating a Bet Contest (Product Contest and Bet
Transaction Rules)
[0076] Module 2: Finding/Displaying a Bet at Any Stage in the Bet
Process
[0077] Module 3: Risking Money on a Product--Making a Bet Choice, a
Bet Offer
[0078] Module 4: Entering and Displaying Descriptions of Users
[0079] Module 5: Retracting Money Risked
[0080] Module 6: Matching Up Offers
[0081] Module 7: Paying the Costs of Judging
[0082] Module 8: Triggering the Judging and Selecting a Judge
[0083] Module 9: Judging the Contest and Settling the Bet
[0084] Module 10: Dividing Money
[0085] Module 11: Charging Users
[0086] Module 1: Creating a Bet Contest (Product Contest and Bet
Transaction Rules)
[0087] The invention provides a module that enables a user (an
author) to create the rules of a bet contest which include:
[0088] (A) rules for a product contest and
[0089] (B) rules for the bet transaction (for risking money on the
contest).
[0090] The product contest can be defined by any number of rules.
At minimum, a user must name the competing products and specify how
the contest is to be judged.
[0091] The bet transaction can be governed by a wide variety of
rules specifying how bettors choose sides and risk money: how money
is committed, when a commitment expires, when a commitment is
sealed, how an offer may be retracted, how money is divided upon
the settlement of the bet, and so forth. The bet transaction rules
include payoff rules that define how much money a bettor will
receive in exchange for the amount of money he has risked, if he
chooses the winner of the product contest.
[0092] Further, the bet may include rules specifying how the
judging is to be paid for.
[0093] Thus, this module enables a user to set up a competition,
like a football game, and define rules about how people can bet on
that game.
[0094] Accordingly, the medium will present forms for enabling a
user to create and enter the data, terms and rules necessary to
create a product contest and corresponding bet contract. Thus, the
invention provides a method of (or medium for): inputting a set of
terms defining a product contest, said terms including:
[0095] at least two competing products (the comparison set of
products),
[0096] a comparison question defining how the competing products
are to be compared and defining the outcomes of the comparison
process,
[0097] a method of judging (of making the comparison)
[0098] rules defining how money is to be risked by bettors on the
outcome.
[0099] For example, the medium might enable an author to input:
[0100] The names of the competing products: Bayer Aspirin and
Costco Aspirin
[0101] The comparison question: Which product is better
overall?
[0102] The judging method: Neutral expert chosen by Bet Press
decides which is better
[0103] The payoff rules: Even odds
[0104] The cost of judging: $1,000
[0105] In this module, the medium creates a bet record for the
contest and for data that surround the contest, for example, who is
betting on the contest, how much they are betting, and various
other data described throughout this specification.
[0106] As noted, in practice, many if not all of the terms of the
contest may be standard, and so, the selection of terms may be by
default. An author will, at minimum, have to name the products that
are competing.
[0107] At minimum, then, the invention provides for a method of (or
medium for): inputting at least two product names that will compete
into a pre-existing bet structure that defines a product contest
along with bet transaction rules for risking money on the outcome
of that product contest.
[0108] Module 2: Finding/Displaying a Bet at Any Stage in the Bet
Process
[0109] The purpose of product bets is to display them to people to
communicate the relative value of products. So, enabling prospects
to find a bet about a product is essential.
[0110] Therefore, the invention provides a module that enables a
viewer to find and see the data defining and surrounding a bet, at
any stage in the bet, from creation of a bet contest to the
settlement of a bet contract.
[0111] This module can enable a viewer to see, for instance, the
competing products, the bet rules, the total amount of money risked
on each product, the individual bet offers and their prices (e.g.,
odds) offered, who has risked money on a product, whether the bet
is going to be judged, the result if any, and so forth.
[0112] A product in a bet can be found by its name and any
descriptor that has been applied to it. A product in a bet can be
found by finding the product(s) it is competing against.
[0113] Products will often be categorized to enable them to be
found. Further, a product may be findable through multiple search
criteria that include named attributes of the product, such as,
price. For instance, a restaurant may be categorized under the
heading Restaurant and the Under $50 price attribute.
[0114] Products may be ranked in various ways using bet data, and
so, product bets can be found in this way too, for instance, Top 10
gourmet restaurants in Scottsdale according to how money has been
bet on restaurants in the "Gourmet Restaurants" category.
[0115] Accordingly, the invention provides a method of (or medium
for): enabling a user to find and view bet data by inputting a
product name, and also, a product category, any other descriptor,
such as a named attribute of the product, by ranking, and further,
by inputting other types of search terms, such as a company name,
author name, and bettor name.
[0116] Module 3: Risking Money on a Contest Outcome (Making a Bet
Choice, a Bet Offer)
[0117] (Note: A bettor may be an author of a bet, and may risk
money while he is authoring the bet, but we will consider the
authoring and risking of money as separate actions.)
[0118] This module enables a bettor to find a bet, choose a product
in the bet, and then risk money that the product will win the bet
contest. More precisely, this module enables a bettor to bet on the
outcomes of the comparison process.
[0119] The outcomes may be that a product has "won" or "lost" the
comparison contest. In such cases, a bettor can simply choose to
bet on one of the products in the contest, as in betting on a
football game or horse race. But, in many cases, the outcomes will
not be a simple as won/lost (see Part 4).
[0120] We will refer to comparison outcomes by several names,
contest outcomes, outcomes, comparison results, contest results,
and results. Sometimes, for simplicity, we will say that a bettor
bets on a product.
[0121] Accordingly, the invention provides a method of (and medium
for): enabling a bettor to find a product bet contest and then pick
a product in the contest and commit to risking money on an outcome
of the contest.
[0122] For example, a user might enter "Bayer Aspirin" into the
medium and find the bet about Bayer vs. Costco. The user could then
risk money that Bayer will win the bet contest.
[0123] (The specific way a user makes a bet choice will depend on
the type of bet. For example, a user making a variable odds bet
offer might simply name the product he is betting on. A user making
a security type bet may choose the product and also choose buy or
sell.)
[0124] The medium displays the user's choice and amount of money at
risk for viewers to see.
[0125] When a bettor makes a choice and risks money he is making a
bet offer.
[0126] The medium can thus display all the bet offers for a given
contest, all the bettors who have chosen each product and how much
money each has risked, as well as the total amount of money risked
on each product.
[0127] There does not need to be an opposing bettor. For example,
all bettors may choose to risk money that Costco Aspirin will beat
Bayer Aspirin.
[0128] An essential aspect of making a bet choice is the "price" at
which money is risked. The kind of price will depend on the payoff
rules in effect, which can vary widely. For example, in a variable
odds bet, the price will be stated in odds, while in a
security-type bet, the price will be stated in the price of a share
of a security.
[0129] The price may be standard, especially in the case of
even-odds bets. If a bet is set up as even-odds only (or some other
standard price) then a bettor can only choose one of the products
to bet on and an amount of money to risk.
[0130] If the user can choose the price in a bet, then this module
will enable him to specify (enter) the price he is willing to bet
at.
[0131] At minimum, then, a bet choice involves picking an outcome
of the product comparison and specifying an amount of money to be
risked on that outcome (for example, $1,000 on Costco Aspirin) at a
specified odds or other price.
[0132] As noted, by making an outcome choice, by specifying an
amount of money at risk, and by stating a price, a bettor has made
a bet offer.
[0133] The method and medium provide for storing this offer, for
enabling the bettor to display this offer and for enabling other
bettors and users to find this offer (see Module 2 above).
[0134] Entering Additional Restrictions to a Bet Offer
[0135] The method and medium can enable a bettor to add a variety
of restrictions/conditions to a bet offer, as disclosed in U.S.
Pat. Nos. 5,575,474 and 6,443,841. Below are just four:
[0136] A targeting restriction directing a bet offer to a specific
individual or entity.
[0137] A lock-in condition in which the bettor promises not to
retract his bet offer for a specified period of time.
[0138] A condition that the bettor's offer will stand only if a
specified amount of money has been contributed by other parties for
paying for the judging.
[0139] A condition that the bettor's offer will only stand if
enough of his stake has been covered by another bettor.
[0140] Module 4: Entering and Displaying Descriptions of Users
[0141] As is plain, in order to operate, the medium will include
the ability to identify authors, bettors, judges and
administrators. Viewers do not have to be identified.
[0142] Enabling a Bettor to Describe His Relationship to a
Product
[0143] The method and medium can also enable users to identify
themselves and their expertise and credentials to the public. This
capability is useful because who makes a bet offer can affect the
communication value of the offer. Particularly important is a
bettor's knowledge of the product being bet on or bet against. For
instance, more information seems to be provided when the President
of Costco Corporation is willing to back up his product with a bet
offer rather than when an anonymous bettor makes an offer. Hence, a
bettor may want to advertise himself when making a bet offer.
[0144] A bettor would normally decide how much information to
provide about himself while making a bet choice, but he could add
the information at a different time. This module, then, can enable
a bettor to decide how much information to provide about himself
for display as supplemental data to a bet offer.
[0145] Accordingly, the invention may provide a method of (or
medium for) enabling a bettor to input and display along with a bet
offer:
[0146] his name
[0147] his company
[0148] his company's relationship to the product in the product
contest--manufacturer, provider (in the case of a service), seller,
or competitor
[0149] his title
[0150] any other relationship he might have to the product(s) in a
product contest, such as buyer or supplier or developer.
[0151] The medium can enable a bettor to select from a menu or
menus of options for describing one's position relative to a
product or one's understanding of a product.
[0152] The data describing the bettor's relationship to a product
that is the subject of a bet offer could be displayed as a "link to
bettor data" shown along with the offer, for instance.
[0153] Also, for convenience, the medium could enable a user to
store a profile about himself and then select how much of that
profile is to be displayed along with a bet offer.
[0154] Accordingly, the invention may provide a method of (or
medium for): enabling a bettor to store profile data, in
particular, data describing his company, his company's relationship
to the product he is risking money on, his title and data
describing his relationship to the product he is risking money on,
and enabling the bettor to select which data in his user profile is
to be displayed along with a bet offer.
[0155] When a Bettor is a Company
[0156] A bettor will often be an entity, especially a company
promoting its product or attacking a competitor's product.
[0157] Accordingly, the invention may provide a method of (or
medium for): identifying a company representative authorized to
make bet offers on behalf of a company, and identifying a bettor as
a company and, further, storing and displaying a variety of data
describing the company, to be viewed along with the company's bet
offers.
[0158] Authenticating a Bettor
[0159] The invention can also include processes for authenticating
identity data provided by a user, whether that data is about an
individual or an entity. Authentication of certain data, such as
company affiliation, may be required, depending on the
implementation.
[0160] In this case, the invention would include processes for
enabling a system-authorized authenticator to enter a designation
of authenticated or not authenticated or inaccurate to label the
description entered by the bettor to describe himself.
[0161] Since authentication processes can cost money, the invention
can also include processes for charging a user for
authentication.
[0162] Further, the invention may provide a user with the option of
being authenticated or not.
[0163] Further, the invention may provide means for displaying
whether a user's purported identity other purported descriptive
data have been authenticated or not.
[0164] Authenticating the Credentials of an Anonymous Bettor
[0165] The invention can enable a bettor to make bet offers
anonymously.
[0166] Moreover, it can include a process for authenticating the
credentials--job title, employment, and relationship to product--of
an anonymous bettor.
[0167] Thus, the invention provides for enabling a bettor to
describe her expertise about a product in such a way that the
bettor's exact identity is hidden. For example, a description could
simply be: Employee of Company Name.
[0168] The bettor can then request authentication.
[0169] A system-authorized authenticator can then investigate the
bettor.
[0170] The authenticator can then enter a designation of
authenticated or not authenticated or inaccurate.
[0171] This kind of description of a bettor can be provide highly
useful information to viewers, especially when anonymous bettors
who work for a company bet against a product produced or sold by
that company.
[0172] Accordingly, the invention provides a method (or medium) for
enabling:
[0173] a user to enter and store a description of his expertise
regarding a product,
[0174] a user to request authentication of this description of his
expertise,
[0175] a system-authorized authenticator to label the description
as accurate or inaccurate,
[0176] a user to make bet offers anonymously and accompanied by a
description of expertise that is authenticated by the
system-authorized authenticator.
[0177] Entering and Displaying a Description of a Judge
[0178] Separately, the invention can include processes for enabling
judges to enter profile data about themselves, and to display this
profile data to bettors and viewers. This capability is useful
because a judge's qualifications can be important for evaluating
her opinion.
[0179] The invention can include means for keeping the identity of
a judge secret from bettors until the judge has entered her
decision, because making the judge public before a decision can
increase the chance of cheating, i.e., that bettors will bribe the
judge.
[0180] Entering and Displaying a Description of the Target of a Bet
Offer
[0181] As explained in the discussion of Module 3 above, a bet
offer may be directed at a target. For instance, a bettor may want
to direct a bet at the owner of a restaurant.
[0182] A bettor may also want to public to know who he has directed
the bet at, and also know the target's relationship to the products
that are the subject of the bet offer.
[0183] For instance, one restaurant owner may want to bet another
restaurant owner about whose restaurant has better food. The bettor
may want to show that his competitor is willing or unwilling to
engage in the bet. Thus, the method can enable a bettor to enter
and display, along with a bet offer, a description of the target of
the bet offer, just as a bettor can enter and display a description
of himself.
[0184] Accordingly, the invention may provide a method of (or
medium for): enabling a bettor to store descriptive data about the
target of a bet offer and to display that data along with the bet
offer. In particular, the data can describe the target's company,
her company's relationship to the product(s) that are the subject
of the bet offer, her title and other data describing her
relationship to the product(s) in the bet offer.
[0185] (See also Part 5 of this Specification regarding the
importance of displaying information about targets of bet
offers.)
[0186] Module 5: Retracting Money Risked
[0187] This module enables a bettor to retract his bet choice (as
disclosed in U.S. Pat. No. 5,575,474). This module can be highly
useful but not strictly necessary. Whether and when a retraction is
allowed will depend upon the implementation of the invention.
[0188] A retraction becomes part of the bet record, stored by the
medium, and can be displayed to viewers.
[0189] Accordingly, the invention provides a method of (or medium
for): inputting a retraction of a bet choice and displaying that
retraction.
[0190] If a retraction is allowed, the invention may include steps
for assessing a retraction fee.
[0191] Module 6: Matching Up Offers
[0192] In this module, the medium matches up bet offers to arrive
at bet contracts that define how money that is risked is to be
divided upon the result of the product contest.
[0193] Many methods known in the art exist for matching up offers,
and the inventive method and medium can include any of these
methods.
[0194] Rules defining how offers are matched are part of the
creation of a bet contest (and usually are standard).
[0195] Accordingly, the invention provides a method of (or medium
for): matching up bet offers.
[0196] We note that the amount of money that is matched up may be
critical in the decision as to whether to pay a judge to settle the
bet (see Modules 7 and 8 below).
[0197] Module 7: Paying the Costs of Judging
[0198] This module enables users to pay for having the bet contest
judged (features for paying for judging were disclosed in U.S. Pat.
Nos. 5,575,474 and 6,443,841).
[0199] The costs of judging a product contest will vary according
to the product contest rules provided in the creation of a bet.
[0200] More than one user may pay for the judging, and a user who
is not a bettor--for instance, a company--may pay for the
judging.
[0201] Accordingly, the invention provides a method of (or medium
for): enabling users to commit to paying all or part of the judging
costs.
[0202] The medium will enable users to see how much the judging
costs and how much has been committed by other users. For example,
a user who finds the Bayer Aspirin vs. Costco Aspirin bet may see
that the cost of judging is $10,000. He may then see how much of
this cost other users have committed to pay.
[0203] Accordingly, the invention provides a method of (or medium
for): displaying who has contributed to paying for the judging and
how much.
[0204] The method can also include rules for rebating money
contributed for judging if the judging does not take place or costs
less than projected.
[0205] The method can also include steps for enabling a user to
commit to paying an amount for judging but only upon certain
conditions being met. Examples of such conditions are how much
money has been matched up against the user's bet offer, if any, and
how much other people have committed to paying for the judging, and
how much specified individuals have committed to paying.
[0206] Module 8: Triggering the Judging and Selecting a Judge
[0207] In order for judging of the bet contest to take place, a
number of conditions may have to be met. For instance, the judging
must be paid for.
[0208] In this module, the medium checks whether the conditions for
judging are met, and if so, informs a judge, thereby triggering the
judging.
[0209] For example, a critical condition may be that the funds for
paying for the judging have been paid. The signal for payment may
be that an amount of money has been paid into a system-recognized
account, or that a system administrator verifies that the amount of
funds of judging have been committed, as required by the bet
transaction rules.
[0210] An administrator may also assist in the triggering process.
That is to say, an administrator may be informed by the medium that
the conditions for judging are met, and then the administrator may
locate a judge and instruct him to judge the contest. The
administrator may also assist in transferring funds to the
judge.
[0211] In fact, a system-authorized, neutral administrator will be
essential for most bets in order to select a judge who is
satisfactory to users betting on a product contest.
[0212] Or, there must be some kind of standard methodology for
finding an expert.
[0213] Or, the invention must include a method of (or a medium
for): storing a list of approved experts sorted by category who are
approved to judge product contests in given categories, and
enabling the author to select from this list.
[0214] A bet contest might be judged even if opposing bettors do
not exist. One or more users may want the products judged and may
pay for the judging, which can be enough to trigger the judging,
depending on the implementation.
[0215] Accordingly, the invention provides a method of (or medium
for): triggering the judging upon the satisfaction of trigger
conditions set forth in the bet contest rules.
[0216] Further, as part of the triggering of the judging the
invention can include a method of (or medium for): alerting a
neutral administrator to locate a judge.
[0217] And/or, further, if the author has selected the judge from a
system-approved list, the invention can include a method of (or
medium for) alerting this judge.
[0218] We note that the bet contest rules will specify at what
point money can be risked on a product comparison outcomes after
the process for selecting the judge has been triggered.
[0219] Accordingly, the inventive method can include steps for
blocking bet offers from being made on a product after the process
for selecting of a judge has been triggered. Likewise, the
inventive medium will perform steps for blocking bet offers at the
point specified by the bet rules.
[0220] Module 9: Judging the Contest and Settling the Bet
[0221] Judging may involve various tests on the products of the bet
contest, but that is not the concern of this specification. The
point is simply that a judging process will take place outside the
medium and that the result of that judging will be entered into the
medium by the judge or, by an administrator that the judge tells,
or by an automated process.
[0222] Accordingly, the invention provides a method of (or medium
for): storing the judge's decision and bet result and displaying it
to users.
[0223] Module 10: Dividing Money
[0224] This module enables winning bettors to divide the money that
has been risked, according to the payoff and division rules of a
bet, assuming that the bet has been settled, and assuming that
opposing bettors exist.
[0225] (Most bets that people are familiar with are winner take all
between two opposing parties, but many other possibilities
exist--that is, many other division rules are possible.)
[0226] Accordingly, the invention provides a method of (or medium
for): dividing the money risked, as specified by the payoff and
division rules, established in the creation of the bet.
[0227] Further, the method and medium provide for recording and
displaying the division of money risked.
[0228] Module 11: Charging Users
[0229] This module enables the medium to charge users for their
usage. The method and medium may include a variety of well-known
processes for charging for information and for taking a commission
on transactions.
[0230] This module may also include processes for charging users
for creating bet contests in order to prevent the over-creation of
bet contests.
Part 2
Setting the Parameters (Terms and Rules) of a Product Bet
Contest
[0231] In this Part 2 of the specification we describe how the
inventive method enables a user to set up a bet contest for
comparing products. We describe more inventive embodiments and
features for this contest than were described in Part 1.
[0232] (In this Part 2 we do not describe features for enabling
users to risk money in a bet because we distinguish between
creating a bet contest and risking money on the contest.)
[0233] A user sets up a product bet contest by entering into the
inventive medium a set of parameters, also called terms and rules.
The inventive medium will present the user with a form or the
equivalent for setting these parameters. The contest parameters are
stored and displayed so other users can react to them or simply
view them.
[0234] The parameters we describe below are:
[0235] Parameter 1: Specifying the Comparison Set of Products
[0236] Parameter 2: Specifying the Comparison Question
[0237] Parameter 3: Specifying Who Will Judge the Comparison
Question
[0238] Parameter 4: Specifying the Cost of Judging the Comparison
Question
[0239] Parameter 5: Specifying the Payoff Method (Rules)
[0240] Parameter 6: Specifying the Matching Rules
[0241] Parameter 7: Specifying the Retraction Rules
[0242] Parameter 8: Specifying the Trigger Conditions
[0243] In this Part 2 and the rest of this specification, we focus
on two parameters: the Comparison Set of Products and the
Comparison Question. We focus on these parameters because they,
more than the others, distinguish the invention from other online
betting methods and systems.
[0244] Other parameters, such as the selection of judges, are
highly important but also apply more generically to other
applications of bets as communication vehicles. We discuss the
other parameters below because they are important parts of the
invention, but we usually do not delve into features for these
parameters. In most cases, where we have novel matter to disclose,
we plan to disclose it in future patent applications.
[0245] Relationship Between the Comparison Set of Products and
Comparison Question
[0246] A person who authors a bet contest has to decide which
products to compare (the comparison set) and how to compare them
(the comparison question). For instance, an author who wants to
compare chocolate truffles in a bet needs to decide which truffles
to compare and how to compare them.
[0247] The comparison set and comparison question go together and
are not necessarily separate in an author's mind. For some authors,
a comparison question will come first; while for others the
comparison set will come first. Either way, an author must specify
both, and it is usually more convenient to do so separately.
[0248] We will first describe useful comparison sets and then
comparison questions below. In Parts 3 and 4 we follow this same
order.
[0249] Parameter 1: Specifying the Comparison Set of Products
[0250] To create a product bet contest, an author specifies the set
of products to be compared.
[0251] Thus, the inventive method (or medium) provides for enabling
an author to describe the comparison set of products.
[0252] In one kind of description, the author would describe each
product specifically, entering a description of a first product, a
second product, possibly a third, fourth and so on.
[0253] The invention enables a user to specify a product by
entering descriptors, including but not limited to: name, model
number, price or price range, size, quantity, location,
warranty/guarantee, and time period (in the case of a service).
Descriptors for products and services may differ. Often a service
is identified by the name of the business that provides the
service, as in, Mike's Pool Service. A service name will often be a
company name modified by the service offered, as in, John's Law
Firm, Patent Litigation.
[0254] Accordingly, the invention provides a method of (or medium
for):
[0255] inputting descriptors defining a first product, said
descriptors including:
[0256] a company name,
[0257] a product or service name,
[0258] model number or other alphanumeric identifier,
[0259] price or price range,
[0260] size or quantity,
[0261] location,
[0262] warranty/guarantee,
[0263] time period (in the case of a service).
[0264] Each product in the contest can be described separately, in
this way.
[0265] For example, the medium might enable an author to input:
[0266] Product name: Costco Aspirin, 200 mg.
[0267] Size: 500 count bottle
[0268] An alternative way of creating the comparison set is to
define a product category and let other users supply the names of
competitors. This method is similar to a horse race in which the
entry requirements are specified and then any horse meeting those
requirements can enter. In the case of a product contest, the
author would define a product category using descriptors, and
possibly the number of allowable competitors. Then other users
could enter specific products that fit the category
descriptors.
[0269] Accordingly, the invention provides a method of (or medium
for): enabling users to:
[0270] input descriptors defining a product category, and
[0271] input descriptions of products that fit that category to
form a comparison set.
[0272] Products in a contest can be described differently, though,
using a variety of references. For example, a product could be
described as "the top ranked mountain bike under $300 in Consumer
Reports."
[0273] In Part 3, we disclose alternative descriptions of
comparison sets.
[0274] Parameter 2: Specifying the Comparison Question
[0275] Another essential parameter to specify is the comparison
question that is to be decided/answered by a judge, supplying the
outcome of the bet.
[0276] The comparison question specifies what the product contest
is about. To give a simplified example, a question might be, Which
of these two products is better?
[0277] The judge's decision on the question is the outcome of the
bet, and it is information that the bet provides to users. But, the
judge's opinion is not the only information provided by a bet on
the comparison question. The opinion of bettors who risk money, and
even those that refuse to risk money, provide answers to the
question. For example, if no manager at Bayer Aspirin is willing to
bet that Bayer is a better aspirin than Costco Aspirin, that
unwillingness to bet provides an answer to the comparison
question.
[0278] Accordingly, the invention provides a method of (or medium
for):
[0279] inputting a comparison question that defines how comparison
set products are to be compared.
[0280] To oversimplify, the purpose of the invention is to be a
method or medium that provides answers to, and opinions on, the
question: Which of these products is better (or best)?
[0281] The reason this question is an oversimplification is that it
hides the actual complexity of the problem of comparing two (or
more) products. There is no single, correct way to compare products
and hence, no single, correct way to answer the simplistic question
of which product is better than another.
[0282] Thus, we disclose several different comparison questions
that lead to different, useful answers/opinions that fill specific
information needs of advertisers and prospects.
[0283] In Part 4, we disclose useful comparison questions that
advertisers want to be answered for prospects and that prospects
want answered about a product.
[0284] A comparison question defines the outcome possibilities of a
product comparison. The outcomes are what are bet upon.
[0285] A complete comparison question implies a judging procedure
and a method for answering the question. For example, a more
complete question than the one above might be: "Which of these two
products is better according to a judge chosen by the following
procedure . . . who is given the following amount of money and the
following amount of time to evaluate the two products . . . ?"
[0286] The details of judging/answering the comparison question are
important, practical aspects of the question, and we will discuss
the selection of judges and the costs of judging as separate
parameters (in sub-sections 3, 4 and 5 just below).
[0287] Parameter 3: Specifying Who Will Judge the Comparison
Question
[0288] A judge is required to decide the comparison question.
[0289] Comparing two products is almost always a subjective task,
which means that human judging is usually required. In certain
cases where "objective qualities", such as price, are compared, a
mechanical judge may be possible. Still, a human judge may be the
ultimate recourse, because even attributes like price can have
subjective or controversial aspects. So, the inventive method and
medium will include steps and means for specifying who will judge
the bet contest--that is, who will decide the comparison
question.
[0290] Accordingly, the invention provides a method of (or medium
for):
[0291] enabling the author to specify who selects the judge of the
bet and, possibly, how the
[0292] judge is chosen.
[0293] Here are six different ways that a judge can be chosen:
[0294] The author chooses the judge according to the author's
preference.
[0295] The author chooses the judge from among a list of
system-authorized judges.
[0296] The author can choose the qualifications of judge, but not
the actual judge, whose selection is decided by another party.
[0297] A designated neutral party can choose the judge. The
qualifications of this neutral party can be set by default or the
author can be given the choice of qualifications.
[0298] A set of customers can be chosen to judge the bet.
[0299] The invention also provides a method of (or medium for):
[0300] displaying the qualifications of the judge or judges.
[0301] Parameter 4: Specifying the Cost of Judging the Comparison
Question
[0302] The next parameter to specify is how much is to be paid for
the judging, which can include a judge's fee, hourly rate, and
expenses, if any. So, the inventive method and medium will include
steps and means for specifying how much will be paid for the
judging of the bet contest.
[0303] Accordingly, the invention provides a method of (or medium
for):
[0304] enabling the author to specify how much is to be paid for
the judging.
[0305] A variety of choices exist:
[0306] The author may state the amount. The author may choose from
a cost menu, such as $500, $1,000, $5,000, and so forth.
[0307] The author may state the amount of time the judge will
spend. The author may choose from a cost menu, such as 1 hour, 5
hours, 10 hours, and so forth. The cost per hour may or may not be
known.
[0308] The author may request a cost estimate from a designated
third party. This cost estimate itself may cost something to
produce. The cost estimate can be for the total job of judging or
an hourly rate.
[0309] Or, the author may request an estimate by specified third
party and create a contest based on this cost estimate. The author
can also specify how much is to be paid for this estimate (because
the estimate will cost money to produce).
[0310] Parameter 5: Specifying the Payoff Method (Rules)
[0311] Payoff rules govern the proportion of money that opponents
in a bet have to risk and how the money risked is divided upon the
outcome of the contest. The inventive method and medium will
include steps and means for specifying the payoff rules.
[0312] Accordingly, the invention provides a method of (or medium
for):
[0313] enabling the author to specify the payoff rules.
[0314] A wide range of rules is possible.
[0315] A person who risks money in a bet will make an offer using
the payoff rules for the bet.
[0316] As noted, the payoff rules define how a bet offer is
"priced."
[0317] The best-known payoff rule, perhaps, is even-odds in which a
bettor offers to risk $1 for each $1 an opponent risks. The person
who picks the correct outcome out of two outcomes then wins the
pot.
[0318] In a variable odds bet the proportions of money risked will
be set by the odds that are offered, usually in X-Y form.
[0319] The payoff rules can allow for a bettor to create a
"security," like a pseudo-stock, whose ultimate value is determined
upon the outcome of the contest. This security can be sold before
the outcome is known.
[0320] (As an aside, if more than two products are compared, and if
variable odds are used, as in horse race betting, users can take
the current odds offered for each product as a measure of the
relative value of those products.)
[0321] In addition to odds-based payoff rules, other kinds of rules
can be created. For example, a judge may score competing products
on a scale, say 1-100, and the difference between the products can
be the basis for how much money a bettor wins from other bettors.
That is, the bettor who has the best estimate of how the products
will score, can win an amount of money that is based on how much
closer he is to the score than opposing bettors.
[0322] (As an aside, if more than two products are compared, and if
the payoff rules are based on a scale, then users can take the
current bets offered for each product as a measure of the relative
value of those products.)
[0323] Parameter 6: Specifying the Matching Rules
[0324] As noted, many well-known methods exist for matching up bet
offers.
[0325] We do not delve into the mechanics of how bettors on the
same "side" of a bet can combine their stakes, and how the money
can be apportioned to the winners.
[0326] Rules defining how offers are matched are part of the
creation of a bet contest (and usually are standard).
[0327] Accordingly, we note that the invention provides a method of
(or medium for):
[0328] enabling an author to create rules for matching up bet
offers.
[0329] Parameter 7: Specifying the Retraction Rules
[0330] Rules for retracting money in a bet contest also may need to
be specified. So, the inventive method and medium will include a
process for specifying the retraction rules.
[0331] Accordingly, we note that the invention can provide a method
of (or medium for):
[0332] enabling an author to create rules for retracting money
pledged in a bet.
[0333] Note: Money risked as a stake in a bet can be treated
differently from money that is committed for paying for the judging
of the bet.
[0334] Parameter 8: Specifying the Trigger Conditions
[0335] Rules for triggering the judging of the bet, and the
commitment of all the monies needed for executing the bet, may also
need to be specified. Normally, these rules will be standard.
[0336] A variety of different rules are possible and we do not
delve into these possibilities.
[0337] Accordingly, we note that the invention can provide a method
of (or medium for):
[0338] enabling an author to create rules for triggering the
judging of the product contest.
Part 3
Specifying the Competing Products (the Comparison Set) in a Product
Bet Contest
[0339] In order to create a product contest, an author must specify
the competing products.
[0340] We will call competing products either competing products or
contestants.
[0341] The simplest comparison is between two products, directly
identified by their names and other descriptors. For instance:
Bayer Aspirin 500 mgs. versus Target Aspirin 500 mgs.
[0342] Two products competing "head-to-head" will probably be the
most common kind of comparison set in product bet contests.
However, comparison sets may be more useful, depending on the goals
of authors and viewers (especially prospective buyers).
[0343] In this Part 3, we will describe three useful kinds of
comparison sets in which an author pits a directly identified,
named product against:
[0344] a. the market leader(s) in the product's category
[0345] b. the top-listed product(s) in a search engine, directory,
guide, or marketplace under a specified search term (search
criteria)
[0346] c. a defined set of multiple products.
[0347] Definition of Search Term
[0348] In the next sections we will use search term often. Search
term will refer to one of more search criteria. We use the singular
for brevity's sake, as is commonly done.
[0349] Definition of a Directly Identified Product
[0350] If a product is identified "exactly" by name along with
various other descriptors, we will call it directly identified.
[0351] A product can be identified in other ways, though. For
example, "sales leader," or "top-ranked" in a particular directory,
or all products in a given category under a given price. We make
the distinction between direct and indirect because the comparison
sets that we describe are ways of indirectly identifying a product
or set of products.
[0352] A Comparison Set Without a Directly Identified Product
[0353] It is also possible to not have a directly identified
product pitted against a comparison set, but instead to simply
define a comparison set as any product that fits a defined
category. In Section 3c, we disclose methods for enabling authors
to specify comparison sets made up of contestants that fit a
defined category.
[0354] Using Price to Define a Comparison Set
[0355] An important way to narrow the definition of a comparison
set is to use a price range or, more usually, a price/cost ceiling.
For example:
[0356] chocolate truffles under $32 per pound.
[0357] Accordingly, the invention can provide a method (or medium)
for: enabling an author to enter a price range or ceiling that
narrows the definition of a comparison set that has been described
more broadly with other terms.
[0358] (Price will have to be determined by a standard method or it
will have to be specifically defined, such as market price, found
at a certain date, determined by a certain method. We discuss this
issue in Part 4 of this specification.)
[0359] Using Location to Define a Comparison Set
[0360] An important way to narrow the definition of a comparison
set is to use a location specifier. For example:
[0361] Restaurants in Venice, Calif.
[0362] Accordingly, the invention can provide a method (or medium)
for: enabling an author to enter a location that narrows the
definition of a comparison set that has been described more broadly
with other terms.
[0363] (Location may have to be defined by a standard method.
Otherwise, it may be understood by convention or by a custom
definition.)
[0364] Brief Note on the Goals of Authors
[0365] The comparison set and comparison question an author chooses
will depend on the goal of the author. The authors of a product bet
may have various motives for creating the bet. An author may want
to communicate that a product is better than another or worse than
another. In other words, an author may want to promote or criticize
a product. She may be a "freelance bet writer" who profits by
creating interesting bets. She may be a system operator whose job
it is to create interesting bets. Other motives are possible.
3a
Creating and Using a Comparison Set that Include a Sales Leader
[0366] A product's most important competitor may be the sales
leader in the product's category. So, an advertiser may want to
communicate that its product is better than the sales leader.
[0367] On the purchasing side, a buyer may want to know how people
are betting for or against the sales leader in a category.
[0368] For example, assume a small company has formulated a new
diaper ointment, Babes Ointment, which performs just as well as the
market leaders, Desitin and Balmex, at half the cost. The company
may want to bet that Babes is a better value or equal in quality to
the market leaders. If bettors favor Babes, then Babes can gain
sales from buyers who check to see which products bettors favor
over Desitin and Balmex.
[0369] As another example, assume that a new diet book is more
accurate than the bestsellers in the diet book category. The
publisher can bet that its book is more accurate than the
bestsellers. Conversely, the publishers of the bestsellers probably
will not want to bet, and their unwillingness can lead people to
buy the new book instead of the bestsellers.
[0370] As another example, consider a new ice cream parlor that has
the best tasting ice cream in a local area. The owner could bet
that his ice cream would win a taste test against the ice cream
from the most popular parlors in the area.
[0371] As these examples illustrate, a useful bet is one in which a
product is pitted against a comparison set made up of the leading
product(s) by sales in a product category.
[0372] Such a bet can be labeled for search purposes by category
and by the designation of: "bets against the sales leader."
[0373] Definition of Sales (Market) Leader
[0374] If a product category is fairly crisp, such as, Diaper
Ointment, and if reliable sales figures are published for that
category, then it should be easy to determine the sales leader.
[0375] However, if a category is not so crisp, such as Auto Repair
in Cleveland, and if reliable sales figures are not published for a
category, then it is not clear how to define and determine the
sales leader. Often, a subjective determination must be made.
[0376] So, sales leader means the product in a category that has
the greatest sales or greatest "market presence," according to the
person making the determination.
[0377] Creating a Sales Leader Comparison Set
[0378] The inventive method and medium will provide steps and input
means for enabling an author to define a comparison set that
includes the sales leader(s) in a category.
[0379] Accordingly, the invention provides a method (or medium)
for: entering the following data that define a comparison set for a
product bet contest:
[0380] 1. Sales Leader Designation
[0381] A bet contest can be labeled for search purposes as a "sales
leader bet contest" or by some other equivalent, better sounding
label, that tells users that the bet pits a "challenger" product
against the sales leader in a category.
[0382] 2. Category
[0383] A bet contest with the designation of "sales leader contest"
will also need to be labeled by category. That is, the products
competing will need to be in the same category, and the sales
leader will need to be the leader in that category.
[0384] 3. Price Ceiling Restrictor
[0385] As discussed, a comparison set may be restricted by a price
ceiling, such as, leading digital cameras under $500.
[0386] 4. Location Restrictor
[0387] As discussed, a comparison set may be restricted by a
location, such as, leading restaurants in Cleveland Park.
[0388] 5. Challenger Product
[0389] In order to have a contest against the sales leader, there
must be a challenger product that is pitted against the leader.
This product can be labeled the challenger, while the leader is
labeled the leader.
[0390] 6. Number of Sales Leaders to be Entered
[0391] For simplicity, we have used the term sales leader singular
but, in fact, a comparison set can include more than one leader.
So, the author of a bet can stipulate the number of leading
products that the challenger will be pitted against.
[0392] 7. Selector of Sales Leader
[0393] Someone must select the sales leader(s) and the selector
needs to be named to inform viewers as to how the comparison was
created. The author can designate himself to be the selector or
designate a neutral third party, or choose from a list of
system-approved selectors. The process of picking the selector of a
sales leader is directly analogous to the process of picking a
neutral judge because both processes involve picking a neutral
party to perform a task. Thus, the processes previously described
for finding a judge can be applied to finding a selector of the
sales leader(s).
[0394] Entering a Description of the Sales Leader(s)
[0395] Once the comparison set is defined, someone needs to find
and enter the name(s) and other descriptor(s) of the sales
leader(s). (The challenger product to be pitted against the sales
leader(s) will already have been entered.)
[0396] As discussed, the author or a neutral third party can find
and enter the sale leader(s).
[0397] If the author does this task then he can enter the sales
leader(s) when he enters the other comparison set data, spelled out
above.
[0398] We note that the author may also be required to put up a
deposit to guarantee that his selection is reasonable. If an author
is required to guarantee his selection, then the invention will
also provide methods for auditing the selection or for enabling
other users to challenge the selection as unreasonable. We do not
elaborate on these methods here.
[0399] If a neutral third party enters the name(s) then the
inventive method and medium will also include a process for
enabling the system to issue a request for a neutral party to
select the sales leader(s). If a neutral party does the selection,
then he will usually have to be paid. And so, the invention will
provide methods for paying the third party from funds provided,
usually, by the author (or possibly from other users, such as
bettors).
[0400] So after getting a request from the system or a system
administrator, the neutral party will enter the name(s) and other
descriptors of the sales leader(s).
[0401] Once the sales leader(s) is/are selected, the bet contest is
fully created and bettors can make bet offers about the
contest.
3b
Creating and Using a Comparison Set that Includes Top-Listed
Product(s)
[0402] Buyers find products through search engines, such as
google.com, directories, such as the Thomas Register, guides, such
as Zagat's Guide to Restaurants, and marketplaces, such as
ebay.com. Buyers use search terms and first find the top-listed
product(s) under those search terms.
[0403] Because of the top-listed products get the most attention
from prospects, an advertiser may want to persuade prospects that
its product is better than such top-listed product(s). A powerful
way to do this is to set up bet contest that pits a product against
the top-listed product(s) in a search engine, directory, guide or
marketplace under a given search term.
[0404] Definitions of Search Engine, Directory, Guide and
Marketplace
[0405] There are many different kinds of search engines,
directories, guides and marketplaces but, for our purposes, they
are equivalent in that listings are organized under search terms,
and further, in that listings are ordered and presented from top to
bottom.
[0406] So, we will treat them equivalently because we will describe
processes for enabling authors to pit a product against the
top-listed product(s) in an ordered list in a search engine,
directory, guide or marketplace.
[0407] Correspondingly, we will describe processes for enabling
bettors and viewers to find product bets according to the name of a
search engine, directory, guide or marketplace and according to the
top-listing(s) under a search term.
[0408] For brevity's sake, we will use the term directory to
represent a search engine, directory, guide and marketplace.
ILLUSTRATIVE EXAMPLES
[0409] Consider a prospect using the search engine and directory
google.com to search for sunscreen lotion. He enters the term
sunscreen and a list is presented of paid-listings and non-paid
listings with links to a variety of websites featuring sunscreen
products. Now, assume that the maker of Sunsmart Sunscreen believes
that its product is better than all those featured on the list. So,
the maker of Sunsmart would like to set up a bet pitting its
product against the top ten sunscreens presented on google.com.
[0410] Assume that a city magazine publishes and annual guide to
"top-doctors" and that the doctors are listed under categories,
such as cardiologists. Further, assume that a cardiologist not
mentioned in the guide believes that her record is better than the
top-ranked doctors in the guide. The doctor might then like to
create a bet contest pitting herself against, say, the top five
cardiologists in the guide.
[0411] As these examples illustrate, a useful bet is one in which a
product is pitted against a comparison set made up of the
top-listed product(s) under a search term in a directory.
[0412] Enabling an Author to Pit a Product Against Top-Listed
Product(s) in a Directory
[0413] One way an author can pit a product against a top-listed
product in a directory is to create a bet in the normal way
described previously between two products. In this case, at least
one product in the comparison set would be a top listed product in
a directory.
[0414] Then, after creating this comparison set, the author would
add data explaining that the contest pits a product against a
top-listing product. The author would add the following data to
describe the comparison set in the bet contest:
[0415] 1. a designation labeling the bet as a bet that pits a
"challenger" product against a top-listed product
[0416] 2. the name of the directory where the top-listed product is
listed
[0417] 3. the search term that the listing can be found under
[0418] 4. the "rank" of the listing under the search term
[0419] 5. the date(s) that the top listing status exists and/or
existed
[0420] Thus, at least one of the products in a comparison set is
identified as being at a specified top spot of a specified
directory under specified search term.
[0421] Accordingly, the invention provides a method (or medium)
for: entering the data above that describe a product in the
comparison set of a product bet contest.
[0422] Enabling Users to Find Bets that Pit Products Against
Top-Listed Products
[0423] With the data entered above to accompany a bet contest, a
bettor or viewer can find the bet contest by searching using the
name of a directory and a search term. The inventive medium will
then output a list of bet contests that match those search
criteria.
[0424] For example, assume that an author has entered a bet that
pits Patrice Restaurant against the "top-listed restaurant in
Zagat's Guide to Restaurants" under the search terms Scottsdale and
Gourmet.
[0425] Then a bettor can input into the inventive medium the search
terms: Zagat's Guide to Restaurants and Scottsdale and Gourmet.
[0426] The inventive medium will then output the author's bet
contest along with any other bet contests that match those search
criteria.
[0427] If bet offers were made on a contest, those would be output
as well.
[0428] Another Way of Enabling an Author to Pit a Product Against
Top-Listed Product(s)
[0429] Another way an author can pit a product against a top-listed
product in a directory is to name a "challenger product" and then
specify a top listed product or products to be compared to the
challenger. The challenger product and the top-listed product(s)
comprise the comparison set.
[0430] Accordingly, the invention can provide a method (or medium)
for entering the following data that define a comparison set for a
product bet contest:
[0431] 1. a designation labeling the bet contest as a contest that
pits a "challenger" product against a top-listed product
[0432] 2. the name of the directory where the top-listed product is
listed
[0433] 3. the search term that the listing can be found under
[0434] 4. the "rank" of the listing under the search term
[0435] 5. the date(s) that the top listing status exists and/or
existed
[0436] 6. a description of a challenger product that is pitted
against the top-listed product(s) in the product contest. This
product will be labeled the challenger, when the full comparison
set is displayed.
[0437] Thus, at least one product in a comparison set is identified
as being a challenger and one as being at a specified top spot of a
specified directory under specified search term.
[0438] For example, assume a cardiologist in Seattle named Rick
Stone wants to bet against the top-ranked cardiologists in a
magazine's "Guide to Top Docs." The cardiologist can use input
forms presented by the inventive medium to enter:
[0439] 1. designation of bet contest: challenger vs. top-listed
[0440] 2. directory where top-listed is listed: Seattle Magazine's
Annual Guide to Top-Docs
[0441] 3. search term(s) top-listed is under: cardiologist
[0442] 4. ranking of the top-listed product: 1
[0443] 5. dates that the ranking exists: Aug. 21, 2003 to date
[0444] 6. challenger product: Rick Stone
[0445] Competing Against Multiple Top-Listed Products
[0446] If an author specifies more than one top-listed product,
then the challenger product will be competing against multiple
competitors. We discuss comparison sets with more than two products
in Section 3c below.
3c
Creating and Using a Comparison Set With More Than Two Products
[0447] The inventive method and medium can include processes for
enabling an author to define a comparison set that has more than
two products. We describe three such processes:
[0448] 1. Author picks all the products
[0449] 2. Author picks one or more of the products and a neutral
expert picks the rest
[0450] 3. Author specifies a category and anyone who pays an entry
fee can enter a product.
[0451] 1. Author Picks All the Products to Be Compared
[0452] An advertiser will often want to compare its product to more
than one other product. For example, assume that a company,
NetAppliance, is introducing a product that it is better in ease of
use than the three major competing products. Then, using
traditional advertising, NetAppliance might present a comparison
table that shows its product's usability versus that of the three
major competitors.
[0453] A more powerful alternative can be to create a bet contest
that pits NetAppliance's product against the three major
competitors compared by ease of use. To create such a contest,
NetAppliance would specify the four different products that make up
the comparison set, using descriptors, as explained in Part 2.
Since we have described how to specify a set of more than two
products that the author picks in Part 2, we do not delve into this
method further here.
[0454] 2. Author Picks One or More of the Products and a Neutral
Expert Picks the Rest
[0455] The problem with having an author (especially an advertiser)
pick all the products in a comparison set is that the author can
rig the contest. From the point of view of buyers, the information
provided by a rigged contest is devalued, of course.
[0456] A solution to this problem is to have an author pick one (or
more) of the products and have a neutral expert pick the rest. The
author would pick at least one "first product." Then a neutral
expert would pick the best competitors she could find to that first
product.
[0457] For example, assume the publisher of a diet book, Eat, Drink
and Be Healthy, wants to demonstrate that the book is one of the
best diet books on the market. The publisher could create a
comparison set in which the publisher enters its book and requests
that a neutral expert pick, say, the four best diet books she can
find to be in the comparison set.
[0458] The request would be passed to a system-authorized
administrator who selects the expert.
[0459] The expert would select the four book to be compared along
with the publisher's book.
[0460] Then, a judge would decide how the five books in the contest
compare according to the comparison question.
[0461] Viewers seeing such a contest would see that the publisher
of Eat, Drink and Be Healthy is highly confident that its book is
an excellent book because the publisher is willing to pit the book
against the best books that an independent expert can find.
[0462] The contest may never be decided, but the willingness to bet
against the best in the field can make a powerful statement in and
of itself.
[0463] To enable this method of creating a comparison set, the
invention provides a method (or medium) for enabling the following
users to enter the following data in the following sequence:
[0464] 1. Author enters:
[0465] a. a designation for the contest of "expert picks the
competition"
[0466] b. a description of a first product
[0467] c. the number of competing products the expert is asked to
pick
[0468] d. a request for an expert to pick the comparison
products
[0469] e. a payment for the expert (the expert's fee may be
automatically assessed)
[0470] The author may also enter a category that the first product
fits and comparison products should fit. A category can help
searchers find the contest, of course, but it can also help an
expert to find products for the comparison set. If a category is
provided, an editor may be needed to review and possibly edit the
category to make it more accurate. If an editor is involved, a
payment to the editor may be necessary.
[0471] 2. Medium alerts an Editor and or Administrator who:
[0472] a. edits the author's category choice or not
[0473] b. contacts an expert (who must be system authorized at some
point) to pick the comparison products
[0474] Editing a category may be necessary, as discussed
previously, especially since the author may have a bias to
categorizing a product more favorably than it should be. The medium
can also include means for enabling editor to enter changes and
submit any changes he has made back to the author for approval.
[0475] An administrator will usually be necessary to locate a
neutral judge, unless there is some kind of standard methodology
for finding an expert or there is a list of approved experts stored
in the medium, which the author can select from.
[0476] Therefore, the invention will provide a method of (or a
medium for): alerting an administrator to locate a neutral expert
who will select the comparison set products, as requested by the
author.
[0477] And/or, the invention will provide a method of (or a medium
for):
[0478] a. storing a list of approved experts sorted by category who
are approved to select comparison products in given categories
[0479] b. enabling the author to select from this list
[0480] c. alerting the selected expert.
[0481] 3. Expert authorized by the editor and medium enters
descriptions of the products in the comparison set, as requested by
the author. The inventive medium stores the descriptions, and
groups them as the comparison set with the first product entered by
the author. Comparison set is complete.
[0482] 4. Author is alerted that the set is complete. He may be
dissatisfied with the expert's picks. Thus, the medium can enable
him to retract the bet contest. The retraction may or may not be
shown to viewers. If the author does not retract the contest, the
comparison set is complete and ready for bettors to bet upon.
[0483] 3. Author Specifies a Category and Anyone Who Pays an Entry
Fee Can Enter a Product
[0484] Another method of creating a comparison set is to have an
author specify a category and then let anyone enter products that
fit that category, provided that each product entry includes an
entry fee.
[0485] The entry fee can be used to pay for the judging of the
contest and/or to create a purse that a person wins if his entry
wins the contest.
[0486] For example, assume the maker of a chocolate truffle wants
to demonstrate that its truffle is one of the world's best and
creates a contest with the comparison question of, Which chocolate
truffle is best, under $40 per pound? and the comparison set
specified by: Anyone can enter a truffle if they pay an entry fee
of $1,000.
[0487] Likewise, consider someone who wants to set up a competition
for digital cameras. He could specify the comparison questions as:
Which digital camera under 8 ounces and under $500 is best? and the
comparison set specified by: Anyone can enter a camera if they pay
an entry fee of $1,000.
[0488] As these cases illustrate, very informative comparisons may
be set up by the method of open comparison sets.
[0489] Part of the advantage of this method is that the entry fee
discourages frivolous entries. Further, if there is a winner's
purse, the method can provide an incentive for people to enter
products simply to win the purse. Users with this motive will only
enter products that they think have a high enough probability of
winning; thereby creating a powerful selection method that weeds
out weak competitors.
[0490] A comparison set created in this way can, therefore, guide
viewers as to which products to consider in a category. For
instance, someone considering buying a digital camera might be
overwhelmed by the variety available. This person might then look
in the inventive medium to see which models people are willing to
enter into product contests. The models in the product contests
will presumably be better than average. Further, the odds or other
measures of betting activity on the contest can indicate which
cameras in the contest are better than others.
[0491] This method of open comparison sets that are bet upon should
often provide a better way to do product ratings than traditional
methods. The open comparison set method also has the advantage that
the competitions are not limited to which products an editor or a
ratings guide chooses for selection at a given time.
[0492] To enable open comparison sets, the invention will provide a
method (or medium) for enabling the following users to enter the
following data in the following sequence:
[0493] 1. Author enters:
[0494] a. Category specifiers that define a category for a
comparison set. A category can be specified by more than just a
name, such as digital cameras; it can include additional
descriptors, such as lightweight, <$500, and so forth.
[0495] Note: An editor may be needed to review and possibly edit
the category to make it more accurate.
[0496] b. An entry fee amount that must be paid for each product
that is entered into the comparison set. The entry fee may be
standard or left up to a fee setting procedure or set by the
author. An entry fee may be comprised of sub-fees that apply to
different purposes, such as judging the comparison, contributing to
a purse, and paying an administrator to review whether a product to
be entered fits the category defined by the author.
[0497] c. A deadline for entering the contest. A deadline can be
determined by a standard procedure or by the author. The deadline
may or may not be a certain date. For example, the deadline might
be "one week after money has been committed to pay for the judging
of five or more products."
[0498] If no editor is needed, the category is ready for
entrants.
[0499] 2. If an editor is required by the rules of the
implementation, then:
[0500] a. the medium will alert a system authorized editor
[0501] b. the medium will enable the editor to make changes to the
author's category definition, and to submit those changes to the
author
[0502] c. payment from the author to the editor may be
assessed.
[0503] If the editor and author approve, the bet contest is ready
for entrants.
[0504] 3. Any user can then:
[0505] a. find the bet contest under its category
[0506] b. enter a product description to be placed into the
comparison set for that contest--that is, enter a product into the
contest
[0507] c. pay an entry fee
[0508] The medium then displays the product as part of the
comparison set.
[0509] 4. A system-authorized approval administrator may be
necessary to verify that a product entrant fits the category of the
comparison set. If so, upon the entering of a product, the medium
alerts an approval administrator who will enter an approval or
rejection of the product. The approval administrator can be paid
with part of the entry fee. Or the invention may include a
challenge procedure in which users can challenge whether an entered
product fits the category it is entered in. Upon the entering of a
challenge, an approval administrator can then review challenged
products. A fee may be required to make a challenge (to pay for the
review), and a penalty may be assessed for entries that do not fit
a category.
[0510] 5. Viewers can see in real time which products are added to
the comparison set.
[0511] 6. Bettors can bet on products in the comparison set even
though the comparison set is not complete--i.e., they can bet
before the deadline for entries expires. This capability can be
highly useful for providing information to viewers and other users
about the relative merits of the products being compared in real
time. Given the purposes of the invention, there is no need to wait
for potential entrants to be entered. In fact, it will often be
counter-productive to make bettors wait.
[0512] Hybrid Method of Creating a Comparison Set of More than Two
Products
[0513] It is also possible, and sometimes desirable, for the
invention to include a method by which a comparison set is made up
of both the pick(s) of a neutral expert and the pick(s) of anyone
who pays an entry fee--in other words, a method that is a hybrid of
methods 2 and 3 described above in this section.
[0514] Brief Note on Payoff Rules Regarding All the Selection
Methods in this Section 3c
[0515] We will digress and momentarily discuss possible payoff
rules to show how a comparison set with more than two products can
be bet upon.
[0516] As the world of horse racing and professional sports in
general shows, there are innumerable ways to make bet offers on a
set of more than two competitors. The same holds true for contests
of products.
[0517] We note that variable odds can be quite powerful if the
contest is for deciding which product is best out of the comparison
set. If odds are used, viewers can see which products the betting
market favors, as in a horse race.
[0518] Security-type payoff rules can be used, which would enable
prices of a security to reflect bettor's beliefs on how a product
would perform in the comparison.
[0519] The payoff rules will depend on the outcome possibilities,
as defined by a comparison question.
[0520] A comparison question will not necessarily be
winner-take-all. For example, it might ask:
[0521] How will each product rate: Poor, Good, or Excellent?
[0522] As an example of a question that may or may not have one
winner, the comparison question could be:
[0523] How will each product rate on a scale of 100-100?
[0524] As an example of a question designed that will usually have
one winner, the comparison question could be:
[0525] Which product is best?
[0526] We give these illustrations not to limit the invention but
simply to show that a wide variety of comparison questions and
payoff rules can be applied to a comparison set that has more than
two products (the same can be said, though, of a two-product
set).
[0527] Brief Note on Paying for the Judging
[0528] It costs more and is more complicated to judge a contest
with more than two competitors than to judge a contest with two
competitors. We have nothing to say in this section on this
subject, except that a wide variety of rules for paying for judging
are possible.
[0529] We note that the invention can provide rules and
corresponding methods for what happens if not enough money is
contributed for judging all of the products in a comparison
set.
[0530] Further, we note than the invention will enable viewers to
see the status of the funding of the judging for each product in a
comparison set, whether that set is made up of two or more
products.
Part 4
Specifying the Comparison Question for Comparing Products
[0531] In order to create a product contest, an author must specify
the comparison question that defines how the products in the
contest are to be compared, and thereby defines the result outcomes
of the contest. The result outcomes are what bettors bet on. As
discussed in Part 1, we will usually call result outcomes simply
results or outcomes.
[0532] For instance, if the comparison set is two kinds of aspirin,
Bayer Aspirin 500 mgs. versus Target Aspirin 500 mgs., then a
simplified comparison question might be:
[0533] Which product is the better value?
[0534] And the results might then be:
[0535] Bayer Aspirin is the better value or
[0536] Target Aspirin is the better value.
[0537] The results will depend on the exact wording of the full
comparison question and the rules surrounding it. For example, if
the rules permit, an outcome might also be:
[0538] Bayer Aspirin and Target Aspirin are an equal value.
[0539] A full comparison question will involve more complexity than
a simple question like the one above because the question will
require more details defining the comparison process, in particular
the judging method. In this Part 4, we will assume, for simplicity,
that an expert judge is used who is picked by a standard, neutral
party.
[0540] Many of the details of a comparison question may be held
standard, just as the terms of many contracts are held standard and
are incorporated by reference. Thus, the "details" of a comparison
question may be considered as separate or integral to a
question.
[0541] Accordingly, the invention provides for a method of (or
medium for): entering a comparison question that defines how to
compare the products in a comparison set, and that defines the
result outcomes of the comparison process.
[0542] The comparison question can be viewed by users once it is
stored as part of a bet contest.
[0543] Types of Comparison Questions To Be Described
[0544] In Sections 4a, 4b and 4c, we will describe three different
types of questions:
[0545] 1. Attribute comparison questions, which are questions for
comparing a specified attribute of products.
[0546] 2. Overall benefits comparison questions, which are
questions for comparing the overall benefits of products.
[0547] 3. Worth-paying-attention-to comparison questions, which are
questions for comparing a product to others according to whether it
is worth paying attention to.
[0548] Timing Aspects
[0549] In any comparison question, the timing of the comparison is
an essential aspect that needs to be stated, or left standard. The
comparison may take place at a particular, static date, or it may
depend on when enough funds have been gathered to pay for the
judging--for the comparison process to be done, that is.
[0550] The time, or period of time, of a comparison can be crucial,
of course, to the result of the comparison. For instance, if two
products are being compared according to price, the result may
hinge on when the prices are compared.
[0551] It is also important to note that, for many products, the
comparison may be about performance over a specified period of time
that may be in the past or future. An example is the performance of
a product like a mutual fund, in which the comparison question
might be about future rate of return. In this case, a comparison
question could ask which fund in a comparison set will have a
higher rate of return from one specified date to another specified
date.
[0552] Accordingly, the invention provides a method of (or medium
for): enabling an author to enter the time/date or time period of
the comparison, as part of the comparison question.
[0553] Location Aspects
[0554] In any comparison question, the location of the comparison
may be an essential aspect that needs to be stated, or left
standard.
[0555] The comparison may take place between products that are
located in a particular area, such as a country or city or
neighborhood. For instance, a plumbing company that wants to
compare its service to another may only want to make the comparison
for a competitor that is located in a certain area of a city.
[0556] Accordingly, the invention provides a method of (or medium
for): enabling an author to enter the location of the comparison,
as part of the comparison question.
[0557] Editing Process
[0558] The invention can also provide for an editing process in
which system-authorized users called editors help authors craft
their bet contests. Editors can also enter a bet contest for
authors into the medium.
[0559] In helping an author create a bet contest, an editor can
help the author create a comparison question.
[0560] A comparison question can be submitted to a
system-authorized editor to ensure that the question uses standard
terms that other users will know how to search for.
[0561] Commonly used terms will be especially useful where bets
regarding product attributes are concerned. Most attributes do not
have universal, standard descriptions. Descriptions are often
awkward and have a "made up" quality, as in: user friendliness,
ease of use, purity, lack of contaminants, returns service, returns
execution, plaque reducing, plaque removal, and so forth.
[0562] As a further illustration, consider a restaurant owner who
wants to create a question comparing her restaurant's wait staff
with the wait staff of another restaurant. She might create a
question that has the term wait staff. But, most users when
searching for attributes of a restaurant will not use wait staff;
they might use a more common term, like service. Thus, an editor
might change wait staff to service.
[0563] Since the universe of possible comparison questions is
infinite, it may help the usability of the invention if there is a
class of editors, and an editing process, for helping make
comparison questions--bet contests in general--easily searchable
for users.
[0564] Use of Standard Questions
[0565] Any implementation of the invention will probably include
not only rules of usage but also standard comparison questions that
authors can choose from.
[0566] Parenthetical Note: A Comparison Question is a Kind of Bet
Statement
[0567] The concept of a bet statement or a bettable statement was
discussed in U.S. Pat. No. 6,443,841. A comparison question is a
convenient way of creating a bet statement or statements about the
products in a bet contest.
[0568] For example, if the comparison question is:
[0569] Which of the two products, A & B, is better?
[0570] For the purposes of a bet, this question can be seen as
equivalent to the bet statement:
[0571] Product A is better than Product B.
[0572] In the case of a comparison question as we have described
it, a bettor makes a choice of--bets on--one of the products in a
comparison set. In the case of a bet statement, as described in
U.S. Pat. No. 6,443,841, a bettor chooses True or False. (Where
certain kinds of quantity bets are concerned, as defined in U.S.
Pat. No. 6,443,841, a bettor will bet on a number rather than on
True or False. Where securities type bets are concerned, a bettor
will choose Buy or Sell at a price.)
4a
Questions for Comparing a Specified Attribute of Products
[0573] The purpose of the invention is to enable users to create
bet offers that communicate facts/opinions about how a product
compares to another product or products.
[0574] For an author or bettor who is an advertiser the goal is to
demonstrate that its product is better than another.
[0575] Usually, a product is better than another regarding a
particular attribute or attributes.
[0576] Definition of Attribute
[0577] An attribute is any property or aspect of a product that is
considered in a buying decision.
[0578] Some examples: a camera might have the attribute of light
weight. A fish oil might have the attribute of purity. A network
appliance may have the attribute of low maintenance. Of course, the
list of product attributes is endless.
[0579] Some attributes will apply more broadly than others. The
vague attribute of honest can be said to potentially apply to many
services, for instance.
[0580] Price is a special attribute because it is universal and
often pivotal in buying decisions. Further, it can change rapidly,
unlike most other attributes.
[0581] Using Bets to Compare Attributes
[0582] Since buying decisions depend on the competitive attributes
of products, advertisers will want to communicate the attractive
attributes of their products to prospects.
[0583] Hence, an advertiser may want to use a bet to communicate
that a specified attribute of its product is better than or equal
to the same attribute in another product.
[0584] Advertisers are not the only users who will have an
incentive to create a bet about an attribute of products. Users who
think they can profit from risking money in such a bet will also
want to create such a bet (a parallel patent application will be
filed disclosing methods for compensating users for authoring bets
and creating bet offers).
[0585] Accordingly, the invention provides a method of (or medium
for): enabling a user to enter a comparison question that asks how
products in a comparison set compare regarding a specified
attribute.
[0586] Defining an Attribute that is the Subject of a Comparison
Question
[0587] An attribute may have to be defined with a fairly lengthy
definition, although it might be stated, for searching purposes,
with a small number of terms. A definition can be standard and
incorporated by reference, or it can be custom written. In the
absence of a definition, a judge would have to interpret a term.
Thus, the invention can provide for entering a definition of an
attribute along with a short name for the attribute.
[0588] Variety of General Comparison Questions Regarding a
Specified Attribute
[0589] There are many kinds of questions that can be created for
comparing an attribute of products. In practice, the inventive
medium can enable an author to choose from a menu of standard
questions. Below we describe three different kinds of such
questions that the inventive method and medium can enable authors
to use for creating bets:
[0590] 1. Asking Which Product Is Better Regarding an Attribute
[0591] 2. Asking Whether Products Are Equal Regarding an
Attribute
[0592] 3. Asking How Much Better a Product Is Than Another
Regarding an Attribute
[0593] 1. Asking Which Product is Better or Best Regarding an
Attribute
[0594] The invention can provide a method of (or medium for):
entering a comparison question that asks which product in a
comparison set is better or best regarding an attribute.
[0595] With this comparison question, the results allowed will
depend on the implementation.
[0596] If two products, A & B, are compared, then the results
may be:
[0597] Product A is better regarding this attribute or
[0598] Product B is better regarding this attribute.
[0599] If two products, A & B, are compared, another result
that may be allowed is:
[0600] Product A is equal to Product B regarding this
attribute.
[0601] If more than two products, A, B, C . . . , are compared,
then the results may be:
[0602] Product A is best regarding this attribute
[0603] Product B is best regarding this attribute
[0604] Product C is best regarding this attribute . . .
[0605] It is also possible for the outcomes to be rankings of the
products according to an attribute, i.e., first, second, third, and
so forth.
[0606] It is also possible to have "negative" outcomes such as:
[0607] Product A is not best regarding this attribute.
[0608] 2. Asking Whether Products are Equal Regarding an
Attribute
[0609] Often, an advertiser will want to demonstrate that its
product is equal to another regarding an attribute. For example,
the maker of a generic ibuprofen will want to demonstrate that the
generic is equal in effectiveness to a brand name, like Motrin.
[0610] Thus, the invention can enable an author to use a comparison
question that asks whether products are equal regarding an
attribute.
[0611] That is, the invention can provide a method of (or medium
for): entering a comparison question that asks whether the products
in a comparison set are equal regarding an attribute.
[0612] This question is especially appropriate if two products are
being compared, although it can also be used when more than two
products are compared.
[0613] Assuming two products, A & B, are compared, the results
of the question might be:
[0614] Product A is equal to Product B regarding this attribute
or
[0615] Product A is not equal to Product B regarding this
attribute.
[0616] More likely, there will be three possible results:
[0617] Product A is worse than Product B
[0618] Product A is equal to Product B
[0619] Product A is better than Product B.
[0620] A bettor could bet on any of the three outcomes or on a
combination, such as, Better Than or Equal To.
[0621] 3. Asking How Much Better a Product is Than Another
Regarding an Attribute
[0622] Often, an advertiser will want to demonstrate that its
product is much better than another regarding an attribute.
[0623] On the other side of a purchase, a prospect will usually
want to know "how much" better.
[0624] Usually there is no recognized way to measure "how much."
Still, subjective judgments of "measure" can be made.
[0625] Thus, a comparison question can ask "how much" and can
define measurements.
[0626] One approach is to define a set of discrete, descriptive
results such as Much Worse, Worse, Equal, Better, Much Better.
Bettors can then bet on any of the outcomes regarding a product's
attribute compared to another product's attribute.
[0627] For instance, one electric toothbrush may be compared to
another according to the attribute of ability to remove plaque. The
manufacturer of one toothbrush may want to bet on Much Better.
[0628] Another approach is to set out a numerical scale, such as 1
-100, and ask how much better one product is than another,
according to this scale. For instance, the maker of a chocolate
truffle may want to bet that "on a scale of 1-100, Truffle A will
be 20 points better than Truffle B."
[0629] Accordingly, the invention can provide a method of (or
medium for): entering a comparison question that defines how much
better products that are compared can be to one another regarding a
given attribute, and defines a set of discrete outcomes of the
comparison that can be bet upon, or defines a scale enabling the
difference between an attribute of two products to be numerically
measured and bet upon.
[0630] Displaying Betting Data Regarding Multiple Attributes of Two
Products
[0631] When a prospect is evaluating two products, such as two
online booksellers, he may want to see multiple attributes at once,
and how people are betting on these attributes.
[0632] Thus, the invention can provide a method of (or medium for):
displaying bet offers about multiple attributes of two
products.
[0633] For example, assume two online booksellers are compared in a
set of bets, and that the odds in the bets are held standard at
1-1, then the amount of money bet on each bookseller, for a given
attribute, can indicate to a prospect which bookseller is better
for that attribute. The bet statistics for the attribute bets can
be displayed together to yield a convenient comparison view, as in
the illustration below.
1 Attribute Money bet on Amazon Money bet on BAM Prices of books $
$ Website $ $ Returns policy $ $ Selection $ $
4b
Questions for Comparing Products According to Overall Benefits
[0634] Using Bets to Compare Overall Benefits
[0635] The purpose of the invention is to enable users to create
bet offers that communicate facts/opinions about how a product
compares to another product or products.
[0636] For an author or bettor who is an advertiser the goal is to
demonstrate that its product is better than another or others.
[0637] Often, a product is better than another or others in the
sense of overall benefits.
[0638] In this case, an advertiser may want to use a bet to
communicate that its product is better than another or others in
the sense of overall benefits.
[0639] Accordingly, the invention provides a method of (or medium
for): enabling a user to enter a comparison question that asks
which product in a comparison set is better or best in overall
benefits.
[0640] Variety of General Comparison Questions Regarding Overall
Benefits
[0641] There are many kinds of questions that can be created for
comparing the overall benefits of products. In practice, the
inventive medium can enable an author to choose from a menu of
standardized questions. Below we describe different kinds of such
questions that the inventive method and medium can enable authors
to use for creating bets:
[0642] 1. Asking which product is better or best overall, not
including price
[0643] 2. Asking which product is better or best overall given
market prices
[0644] 3. Asking which product is better or best given prices
specified by the author
[0645] 4. Asking which product is better or best under a specified
price.
[0646] 5. Asking how much better one product is than another
[0647] 6. Asking how much more one product is worth in money than
another
[0648] 7. Asking whether a product is equal overall to another, not
including price
[0649] 8. Asking whether a product is equal overall to another,
including price
[0650] 1. Asking Which Product is Better or Best Overall, Not
Including Price
[0651] In many cases, an advertiser will want to communicate that
its product is better than another without considering price. For
example, a cardiology practice might want to demonstrate that it is
better than another cardiology practice, ignoring the issue of
price.
[0652] Likewise, a buyer in many cases will simply want to know
which product is better/best out of a set of products, ignoring the
issue of price. For example, a person looking for a cardiologist
might not care about price but only the overall quality of the
care.
[0653] Therefore, a comparison question that will be useful in
certain situations is a question that asks: Which product is
better/best overall, not including the price of the products being
compared.
[0654] Accordingly, the invention can provide a method of (or
medium for): entering a comparison question that asks which product
in a comparison set is better or best overall, without factoring in
the prices of the products being compared.
[0655] In a bet, the results of this kind of question (or any
better/best question) could be:
[0656] Product A is best
[0657] Product B is best
[0658] Product C is best . . .
[0659] or, if allowed by the rules of the bet,
[0660] The Products in the comparison set are equal.
[0661] (Other kinds of result outcomes are possible, but we give
the ones most likely to be implemented, without limiting the
invention just to these result outcomes.)
[0662] 2. Asking Which Product is Better/Best Overall Given Market
Prices
[0663] In many cases, an advertiser would like to demonstrate that
its product is a better value than another, that is, better overall
with price factored into the comparison.
[0664] Likewise, in many cases, buyers are interested in value,
overall benefits with price factored in, rather than just which
product is better overall than another.
[0665] For example, an advertiser of generic aspirin might like to
demonstrate that the aspirin is better overall than another or
others if the price of the aspirins is taken into
consideration.
[0666] Accordingly, the invention can provide a method of (or
medium for): entering a comparison question that asks which product
in a comparison set is better or best overall, factoring in the
prices of the products being compared.
[0667] But what prices should be used?
[0668] There is no single definition of price. Price can be
determined in many ways. So, let us differentiate between a market
price discovered in some defined way by a judge, and an
author-specified price set by the author of the bet.
[0669] Accordingly, the invention can provide a method of (or
medium for): entering a comparison question that asks which product
in a comparison set is better or best overall, factoring in the
prices of the products being compared, where price is defined as
the market price as found by a judge at a specified date or during
a specified period of time.
[0670] We will consider such a question as equivalent to the
comparison question: Which product is the better/best value at
market prices?
[0671] 3. Asking Which Product is Better/Best Given Prices
Specified by the Author
[0672] In certain cases, an advertiser would like to communicate
that its product is better or best given certain specified prices.
Likewise, a buyer will sometimes be interested in seeing a
comparison given a certain pricing scenario.
[0673] For example, an advertiser of office space might want to
demonstrate that its space is better than another space given a
certain level of rents for each space being compared. A prospective
renter might be interested in seeing the comparison this way, with
known price figures, since market prices might be difficult to
obtain in advance of negotiations.
[0674] Accordingly, the invention can provide a method of (or
medium for): entering a comparison question that asks which product
in a comparison set is better or best overall, factoring in the
prices of the products being compared, where the prices are set by
the author of the bet.
[0675] We will consider such a question as equivalent to the
comparison question: Which product is the better/best value at
these given prices?
[0676] 4. Asking Which Product is Better or Best Under a Specified
Price.
[0677] In certain cases, an advertiser will want to communicate
that its product is better or best under a specified price.
[0678] On the other side of the purchase, many buyers will want to
know the answer to the question: Which product is better or best
under $______.
[0679] For example, many prospective buyers of a digital camera
will want to know, What is the best camera under $500? As another
example, prospective buyers of fine chocolate will often want to
know, What is the best chocolate under $40 a pound?
[0680] The question of what is best under a specified price is
especially useful where more than two products are being compared.
It is also especially useful where the comparison set is a category
of products, such as lightweight digital cameras, or chocolate
truffles.
[0681] Accordingly, the invention can provide a method of (or
medium for): entering a comparison question that asks which product
in a comparison set is better or best overall, under a price
specified by the author of the bet.
[0682] (Indeed, the answer to such a question might be called the
Holy Grail for buyers. Most buyers have a budget and would like to
know what is the "best" they can get under that budget. But, the
answer is an illusion. As discussed, "better" and "best" are
subjective concepts that cannot be fully captured with a simple
question. Hence, "better" and "best" will have to be defined
according to the judging procedure used, which will vary depending
on an author's choices.)
[0683] Asking Which Product a Judge Would Pick if the Judge Were
Making a Purchase
[0684] The first four questions described above are of the form:
Which product is better or best in a comparison set?
[0685] This form leaves open the exact judging procedure, which, as
discussed, would need to be specified by an author or be left
standard. The invention provides will provide processes for
enabling authors to specify the details of judging, if required in
the implementation.
[0686] Before discussing the first four questions above, let us
describe another, related form that such questions can take, and
that is highly useful for buyers in particular. Because of its high
utility, it will probably be employed often.
[0687] The form is this: Which product in the comparison set would
the judge pick if he were buying one of the products?
[0688] Whenever we describe a question of the form, Which is
product better/best?, one can substitute the form, Which product
would the judge pick if he were buying?
[0689] For example, assume that the comparison set is the category
of lightweight digital cameras under $500. In this case, the
question would be: Which camera in the comparison set would the
judge purchase for under $500 if the judge were making the
purchase?
[0690] This form of a question may seem exactly equivalent to
asking a judge, Which is better/best?, but when a judge answers
that question, he does not necessarily answer it for himself, there
is no such requirement, unless so stated.
[0691] Finding out the answer to What would the judge (especially
an expert judge) buy for himself? is a way of selecting a product
that appeals to many buyers. (Of course, it is not perfect, since a
judge's preferences will not necessarily match a buyer's.)
[0692] Accordingly, the invention can provide a method of (or
medium for): entering a question that asks which product in a
comparison set a judge would buy for himself.
[0693] This question can be further modified by adding any of the
following conditions:
[0694] (a) which he would buy if price was not a factor?
[0695] (b) which he would buy if given market prices?
[0696] (c) which he would buy if given prices specified by the
author?
[0697] (d) which he would buy if he had to spend less than a
specified amount of money?
[0698] 5. Asking How Much Better One Product is Than Another.
[0699] An advertiser may want to communicate that his product is
better overall in a measurable way versus another product.
[0700] On the other side of a purchase, a prospect will usually
want to know "how much" better a product is than another.
[0701] Usually there is no recognized way to measure "how much
better overall." Still, subjective judgments of "measure" can be
made.
[0702] Thus, a comparison question can ask "how much" and can
define measurements.
[0703] One approach is to define a set of discrete, descriptive
results such as Much Worse, Worse, Equal, Better, Much Better.
Bettors can then bet on any of the outcomes regarding a product's
overall benefits compared to another product's overall
benefits.
[0704] For instance, one electric toothbrush may be compared to
another. The manufacturer of one toothbrush may want to bet on Much
Better.
[0705] Another approach is to set out a numerical scale, such as
1-100, and ask how much better one product is than another,
according to this scale. For instance, the maker of a chocolate
truffle may want to bet that "on a scale of 1-100, Truffle A will
be 20 points better than Truffle B."
[0706] Accordingly, the invention can provide a method of (or
medium for): entering a comparison question that defines how much
better products that are compared can be to one another regarding
overall benefits, and defines a set of discrete outcomes of the
comparison that can be bet upon, or defines a scale enabling the
overall difference between two products to be numerically measured
and bet upon.
[0707] 6. Asking How Much More One Product is Worth in Money Than
Another.
[0708] One way to show that a product is better than another is to
ask how much a judge would pay for each.
[0709] Accordingly, the invention can provide a method of (or
medium for): entering a comparison question that asks how much a
judge would pay for each product in a comparison set.
[0710] Another way is to ask how much extra, or how much less, a
judge would pay for one.
[0711] The measure could be in money terms, e.g., How many more or
less in dollars would a judge pay for Product A compared to Product
B?
[0712] Or, the measure could be in percentage terms, e.g., How much
more or less in percentage terms would a judge pay for Product A
compared to Product B?
[0713] Accordingly, the invention can provide a method of (or
medium for): entering a comparison question that asks how much more
or less a judge would pay for one product compared to another.
[0714] The outcomes of the two comparison questions above would be
numbers, which could be bet upon in various ways that are
well-known in the art and need no elaboration.
[0715] 7. Asking Whether a Product is Equal Overall to Another, Not
Including Price
[0716] In many cases, an advertiser will want to communicate that
its product is equal to another or others, not including price. On
the other side of a purchase, a buyer will sometimes want to know
if products being compared are equal overall, not counting
price.
[0717] For example, the maker of a generic aspirin might want to
demonstrate that its aspirin is equal overall to a brand name
aspirin, not including price. That way, if the aspirins are found
equal, a buyer can compare prices himself and realize that the
generic aspirin in the better value.
[0718] Accordingly, the invention can provide a method of (or
medium for): entering a comparison question that asks whether the
products in a comparison set are equal overall, not factoring in
the prices of the products being compared.
[0719] In a bet, the results of such a question could be stated in
different ways depending on the implementation. The results might
be:
[0720] Product A is better than Product B
[0721] Product A is equal to Product B
[0722] Product A is worse than Product B
[0723] Or a combination, such as, Product A is better than or equal
to Product B.
[0724] If more than two products are being compared then the
results might be:
[0725] Product A is better than or equal to all the comparison set
products or
[0726] Product A is worse than one or more of the comparison set
products.
[0727] 8. Asking Whether a Product is Equal Overall to Another,
Including Price
[0728] In some cases, an advertiser might want to demonstrate that
products are equal overall, including price. Likewise, a buyer
might simply want the answer to the question: Are these products
basically equal?
[0729] For example, the owner of a neighborhood barber shop might
want to demonstrate that his barbershop is equal to the barber
shops of a national chain, while a prospective client might want to
know, Is this barbershop as good as the ones in the national chain?
If the barbershop is equal to its competitor, a buyer might choose
the neighborhood barbershop for some reason particular to the
buyer, such as location.
[0730] Accordingly, the invention can provide a method of (or
medium for): entering a comparison question that asks whether the
products in a comparison set are equal overall, factoring in the
prices of the products being compared.
4c
Is-It-Worth-Paying-Attention-To Comparison Questions
[0731] For an advertiser, the initial problem to solve in dealing
with a prospect is: How do I convince the prospect that it is
worthwhile to pay attention to my pitch (message)?
[0732] For a prospect, the initial problem to solve about a pitch
is: Is it worth paying attention to?
[0733] A special kind of bet can be used to solve these problems
for advertisers and prospects.
[0734] A bet can be made about whether a neutral third party expert
will think it is worthwhile for a prospect to pay attention to a
pitch about a particular product.
[0735] We will call this kind of question an
Is-It-Worth-Paying-Attention-- To question or an Is-It-Worth
Learning About (WLA) comparison question.
[0736] WLA questions are for discovering whether or not a specified
product is worth learning about compared to learning about another
specified product or products.
[0737] A WLA question can ask whether it is worth learning about a
product overall or about particular attribute of the product.
[0738] Ideally, a prospect would have a personal, trusted expert
agent making these decisions, but that has proven an impractical
ideal so far. A substitute, then, is a WLA question in which people
bet about what such an expert would say for a particular product
when compared to another product or product.
[0739] In a WLA question, the comparison set is not strictly in a
contest, as with the other kinds of comparison questions described
in this specification. But, the comparison set is still a necessary
background against which to judge whether a product is worth
learning about. For example, if the question is simply, Is a
Filtrete Air Filter worth learning about?, the answer will almost
always be no. That's because for a random person there is not
enough time to learn about any random product, such as a Filtrete
Air Filter.
[0740] But, if the question is, Is a Filtrete Air Filter worth
learning about for a prospect who is considering buying a Lowes Air
Filter?, then the answer may be yes. The Lowes Air Filter provides
the necessary comparison context.
[0741] A WLA question can use a specified, named products, or a
product category as a comparison set. For example, Lowes Air Filter
or Home Heating/Cooling Air Filters.
[0742] Accordingly, the invention can provide a method of (or
medium for): entering a comparison question that asks whether a
product is worth learning about relative to learning about another
particular product or relative to a product category.
[0743] The outcome results of such a question are True or
False.
[0744] Adding Modifiers to a WLA Question
[0745] Various modifiers can be added to a WLA question. The
question can ask: Is it worth spending a certain amount of time
learning about a specified product?
[0746] The question can ask: Is it worth paying attention to a
specified ad message, such as a specified webpage ad, audio ad,
video ad, print ad, or phone conversation with a salesperson? This
kind of modifier to the question would identify the particular ad
message or interactive message through ways that are well known in
the art.
[0747] Accordingly, the invention can provide a method of (or
medium for): entering a comparison question that asks whether a it
is worth paying attention to a specified ad message or sales
conversation about a specified product if a person is considering
buying another specified product or any product in a specified
product category.
[0748] Exception to the Comparison Set Parameter Requirement
[0749] In this specification, comparison questions define a
comparison. We should note that a variation of the WLA question can
omit a comparison. Instead, a WLA question can include a customer
segment modifier, such that the question has the form:
[0750] Is it worth it for people in this customer segment to learn
about this product?
[0751] For example:
[0752] For asthmatics, is it worth learning about a Filtrete Air
Filter?
[0753] The invention can enable authors to create "comparison
questions" of this form as well. The other parameters and methods
described in this specification still apply to creating a useful
bet that communicates the value of a product.
[0754] Betting on a Novel Measure of Whether a Product is Worth
Learning About
[0755] One way to tell whether a product is worth learning
about--whether it is worthwhile to spend time viewing or listening
to an ad, or engaging in a sales conversation--is to find out the
percentage of people who have bought as a result of being exposed
to a pitch about the product.
[0756] For example, if 10% of people who read about a certain brand
of chocolate truffle actually buy that truffle, then that is
powerful evidence that the truffle is worth learning about.
[0757] Of course, the percentage threshold will vary by product and
will vary according to the buyer's expectations. Some buyers will
want to pay attention only to ads/conversations with a high sales
conversion rate, others will expect lower rates.
[0758] The question to bet on then has the general form of: What
percentage of prospects will buy a product, providing those
prospects are genuinely considering buying a particular competing
product or a products?
[0759] The outcome of this question is a number, which can be bet
on in various ways that are well known in the art.
[0760] An obstacle arises in how to verify that a prospect is
genuinely considering buying a competing product. There are ways to
overcome this obstacle, but they are not the province of this
specification. Suffice to say, a third party can verify, perhaps
probabilistically, whether a particular prospect is a "real buyer"
of a competing product, and can further determine what product the
buyer bought, and whether the buyer learned about the product that
is the subject of the bet question.
4d
Modifying Questions by Using Customer Profiles
[0761] A fundamental aspect whether a product is "better" than
another is the question of, better for whom? In other words,
"better" will depend on the tastes/needs of the prospects who might
buy that product.
[0762] Take, for instance, a 3M Filtrete brand air filter for home
heating/cooling systems. This filter is perhaps the best on the
market for screening small particles.
[0763] So, is this filter the "best" for a prospect who needs an
air filter? In most cases, the answer is no, because a Filtrete
adds pressure and expense to a heating/cooling system. For most
people, a filter costing one tenth as much is better than a
Filtrete. But, for people with allergies and certain respiratory
conditions, the Filtrete may be better.
[0764] Most products are better or worse than competing products
depending on the "segment" of customers being considered.
[0765] Therefore, a comparison question can incorporate a
description of a customer segment--also called a customer
profile--that the comparison is for. When we say that the
comparison is for the customer segment, we mean that the comparison
should be judged from the segment's point of view, as if the
segment itself could judge the competition.
[0766] The profile/description of a segment can be short or
long.
[0767] For instance, a general form comparison question with a
one-word profile can be:
[0768] Of these two air filters, which is better for
asthmatics?
[0769] A customer profile can be incorporated into any of the
comparison questions that have been described above, in Sections
4a, 4b and 4c.
[0770] A profile can be used in an Attribute Comparison question,
as in:
[0771] For asthmatics, and considering the attribute of particulate
screening, is a Filtrete filter better than a Home Depot
filter?
[0772] A profile can be used in an Overall Benefits Comparison
question, as in:
[0773] For asthmatics, is a Filtrete filter better overall than a
Home Depot filter?
[0774] A profile can be used in a WLA question, as in:
[0775] For asthmatics, is a Filtrete air filter worth learning
about?
[0776] In the absence of a customer segment profile in a comparison
question, a judge may substitute her own tastes, or may make
guesses about the tastes of some nameless "average buyer," which is
somewhat unsatisfactory. Thus, customer segment profiles often
helpfully modify/specify a comparison question.
[0777] The problem with using customer profiles is that they may be
difficult to write in a way that is easily searchable by buyers.
That is, buyers may have trouble describing their own segment in
the same way that advertisers will define segments. But, in many
cases, this search/description obstacle will be overcome. Customer
segment profiles will be used in comparison questions because they
solve key questions for advertisers and buyers.
[0778] Accordingly, the invention can provide a method of (or
medium for): enabling an author to incorporate a customer segment
profile (description) into a comparison question to specify that
the comparison is to be judged from the segment's point of
view.
Part 5
Generating and Displaying Statistics About Betting on a Product
Contest
[0779] For viewers of a bet contest, it can be highly useful to see
how the people interested in the contest are betting. Ideally, that
means viewing all of the bet offers that have been made and matched
for the contest, and the credentials, if any are provided, of the
bettors.
[0780] It will often be impractical, though, for a person to scroll
through all these offers. Therefore, market statistics can be
generated that summarize the betting activity on a product
contest.
[0781] Thus, the invention can provide a method (and or medium)
for: generating and compiling a series of statistics that summarize
the betting activity on a contest. These statistics can include the
following:
[0782] The number of bettors betting on each product in the
contest
[0783] The ratio of bettors betting on a product compared to the
total number of bettors betting on all the products in the
contest
[0784] The amount of money staked on each product
[0785] The ratio of money staked on each product compared to the
total amount staked
[0786] A graph of offers showing the prices of all the offers made
on a product
[0787] A graph of prices of offers plotted over time
[0788] The number of people at a company who are betting on a
product produced or sold by that company
[0789] The number of anonymous bettors from a company who are
betting on a product produced or sold by that company
[0790] The number of anonymous bettors from a company who are
betting against a product produced or sold by that company
[0791] Generating and Displaying Statistics on Betting
Inactivity
[0792] In addition to seeing the bet offers made, it can also be
useful to see who has not been willing to make bet offers.
[0793] For example, if the president of a company that makes air
filter that is in a contest is not willing to back up his filter
with a bet offer, and if all of his company's top executives, are
likewise unwilling to bet on their own air filter, then that can be
a powerful indicator that they believe their air filter will lose
the contest.
[0794] Companies themselves can be bettors. So, a company's
unwillingness to bet on a product also reflects poorly on that
product.
[0795] Further, as disclosed in U.S. Pat. No. 6,443,841, and noted
in the description of Module 3 above, a bettor making an offer can
target that offer at a person. A bettor can even offer to pay the
target to evaluate the offer.
[0796] Targets who do not accept the challenge to accept an offer,
or who do not make a counter-offer, show that they feel that they
do not know enough to bet, or show that they are unwilling to bet
on the product specified by the bet offer.
[0797] Ideally, a viewer could see all the non-acceptances of bet
offers by people in a position to know about the products in a bet
contest. But that is usually impractical.
[0798] Instead, statistics can be generated that summarize the
unwillingness to bet by people who should be interested in a
contest, such as people selling the products in the contest, and
people who are the targets of bet offers (bet challenges).
[0799] Thus, the invention can provide a method (and or medium) for
generating and compiling a series of statistics that summarize the
betting inactivity on a contest. These statistics can include the
following:
[0800] The number of people targeted with an offer--a challenge--to
bet on a product
[0801] The number of targets of bet offers who decline a challenge
to bet on a product
[0802] The percentage of targets of bet offers who decline a
challenge to bet on a product
[0803] The percentage of these targets who decline to make a bet
offer on a product
[0804] Statistics can also be created that use the number of
employees at a company who are betting or not betting on a product.
In order for such statistics to be created, the invention must
include processes for collecting and storing data on the number of
employees at a company, and subsets of those employees, such as the
number of executives at a company. These processes will vary
depending on the methodology for counting and categorizing
employees.
[0805] Assuming that the invention includes processes for storing
the number of employees at a company, and various subsets of those
employees, then statistics on betting inactivity that the invention
can display include:
[0806] The total number of employees of a company that makes a
product (this statistic requires a process for entering and
authenticating)
[0807] The number of employees not betting on the product
[0808] The total number of top executives at a company that makes a
product
[0809] The number of top executives not betting on the product
[0810] Generating and Displaying Statistics About Bettors
[0811] As discussed in U.S. Pat. No. 6,443,841, in order to enable
viewers to better evaluate the meaning of a bettor's bet offer, it
is useful to see that bettor's record in past bets. Various
statistics can be generated and displayed.
[0812] Here we only want to emphasize that the invention can
provide processes for generating statistics about a bettor's record
concerning products that his company produces or sells.
[0813] Such statistics may not apply to a large percentage of
bettors. But, these statistics can be highly useful for evaluating
the bet offers of employees of a company, particularly
executives.
[0814] For example, executives at a company may consistently lose
bets on their own products, or might consistently retract bet
offers on their products. Statistics showing such patterns would
usually indicate that the bettors are not as confident of their
products as their bet offers show.
[0815] Conversely, if executives consistently win their bets, and
consistently do not retract bet offers, they show that their bet
offers may understate their confidence in their products.
[0816] Just as statistics can be compiled for an individual working
for a company, they can be compiled for a company that is a bettor.
The same kinds of statistics that can be generated for an
individual can also be generated for a company regarding won/lost
records in bets, and retraction/non-retraction records in bet
offers.
* * * * *
References